The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving the genuineness of the agreement for sale, the payment of consideration, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness as per the provisions of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963, Section 16(C.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2013 and 25.09.2013 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 16 of 2009 affirming the order dated 28.11.2008 and decree dated 15.12.2008, respectively passed in Title Suit No. 89 of 2000.

3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Title Suit No. 89 of 2000 was instituted for decree for specific performance of the contract dated 27.10.1999. He submits that inspite of the valid documents as well as the agreement, the learned trial court has dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2008 and 15.12.2008 respectively. He further submits that the appellants filed the Title Appeal No. 16 of 2009 and the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and has affirmed the order of the learned trial court by the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2013, the decree has been signed on 25.09.2013. Aggrieved with the said judgment and the decree of the learned appellate court, the appellants filed this Second Appeal. This Second Appeal was admitted on 18.03.2021 on the following substantial question of law:

“(i) Whether in view of the pleadings of the parties in respect of the agreement which is Exhibit-9, both the courts below committed error of law by holding the Exhibit-9 as doubtful document.”

4. The plaintiffs have instituted the case narrating therein that there was an agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was reduced into writing dated 27.10.99 wherein the consideration amount was fixed for Rs. 1,60,000/- out of which Rs. 1,35,000/- was paid by way of advance and the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The contract for sale was to be performed within the period of six months. The suit property comprises an area of 1700 sq. ft. i.e. 2 katha 5 chhatak 35 sq. ft. within Plot no. 192, Sub-plot No. 192-A, Holding no. 683, Old Ward No. II, New Ward No. V of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Mohalla Pinjarapole, Upper Bazar, Ranchi. The defendant as the sole owner of the said property executed an agreement for sale for an agreed consideration amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- out of which Rs. 1,35,000/- was paid in advance and the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. Failure to perform the contract would incur legal liabilities. The plaintiff made prayer for a decree of specific performance of contract directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receipt of the balance consideration amount of Rs. 25,000/- and in the alternative made prayer for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- and 1,25,000/- as compensation and damages with interest at the rate of 17½ % per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,35,000/-. Other incidental reliefs were also prayed for.

5. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement stating therein that defendant after receipt of summons appeared in the case and has contested the suit of the defendant claiming that there was no agreement for sale rather there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendant further claimed that the defendant helped the plaintiff several times by giving him money which the plaintiff repaid and as on date Rs. 2800/- is still unpaid. When the defendant made demand of this money this false case has been instituted by the plaintiff. The execution of the contract for sale of the immovable property has been totally denied by the defendant. The defendant further claims that the suit property is valued for more than Rs. 2 lacs per katha and the building standing thereon is valued for more than Rs. 5 lacs. Even going by the meager valuation as stated by defendant the suit property woul