In specific performance cases, the plaintiff must continually demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform, and undue delay can prevent enforcement of contracts regardless of previous proceedings.

-

-

JUDGMENT :

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.

The defendants in OS 341/1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta are the appellants. (For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.)

2. The plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance and consequential reliefs. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property consisting of 10 cents of property belonging to the defendants was agreed to be purchased by him for a consideration of Rs.45,000/- and an agreement was entered into in that respect on 17.11.1992. On the date of the agreement, a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid as advance. The period fixed for execution of sale deed was nine months, after measuring out the property fixing the boundaries and clearing the encumbrances if any. According to the plaintiff, though he approached the defendants even before the expiry of the period of the agreement for getting the sale deed executed, the defendants evaded the same. The plaintiff also came to know that a civil case was pending before the Munsiff's court, Adoor and another case before the RDO, Adoor, in respect of the scheduled property. Whenever the plaintiff demanded the defendants to execute the sale deed, they replied that the sale deed could be executed after the disposal of the above cases. On 16.8.1993, the plaintiff caused to issue a lawyer's notice to the defendants calling upon them to execute the sale deed. Though the defendants received the notice on 17.8.1993, they failed to execute the sale deed. On 9.11.1995, the plaintiff issued another lawyer's notice expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Though the defendants received the said notice on 10.5.1995 and 11.5.1995 respectively, they did not comply the request and hence the suit.

-

3. The defendants filed a written statement admitting the execution of the sale agreement and contended that the sale deed could not be executed due to the default of the plaintiff. According to them, earlier an agreement was entered into between the parties in respect of sale of 30 cents of property. Since the plaintiff was able to purchase only 20 cents, execution of sale deed in respect of the remaining 10 cents was adjourned at the request of the plaintiff, for which a new agreement was executed with a stipulation of three months period. Again, due to the default of the plaintiffs, the sale deed could not be executed as he was not having sufficient money to purchase the property. Therefore, a 3^rd agreement was executed fixing a period of nine months for the execution of the sale deed. Though the defendants were ready and willing to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The allegation that the plaintiff came to know about the two cases in respect of the plaint schedule property is false. Those cases were pending even when he purchased 20 cents of property from the defendants. The allegation that the defendants told the plaintiff that the sale deed will be executed after the disposal of the cases, is false. In fact, the defendants were present in the Sub Registrar's office, Pathanamthitta, for executing the sale deed on 16.8.1993. However, the plaintiff did not turn up with the balance sale consideration. Though the defendants were ready and willing to perform the contract within the period stipulated in the agreement, the plaintiff was not ready and willing and therefore, they prayed for dismissing the suit.

-

4. The trial court framed five issues. The evidence