The plaintiff must prove the execution of the sale agreement, readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the validity of the agreement to claim specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Court of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribag in Title Appeal no. 13 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, learned First Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal on contest but without costs.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit land is the Raiyati of the defendant and the defendant in need of money, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for selling the suit land for a consideration amount of Rs. 27,750/-and an agreement was executed by the defendant by putting his LTI on 29.06.2001 and the defendant was paid Rs. 10,000/-. The sale deed was to be executed as soon as possible and the defendant thereafter delivered the possession to the plaintiff and the plaintiff came in peaceful, cultivating possession over the suit land. The plaintiff approached the defendant to execute the sale deed but the defendant did not oblige to the plaintiff. The plaintiff went several times to the defendant to take the balance consideration amount but the defendant did not receive the balance consideration amount nor executed the sale deed but the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance consideration amount and was still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the plaintiff filed the suit for relief of:

(a) The decree for specific part performance of contract to be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land.

(b) Decree of temporary and permanent injunction against the defendant.

4. The defendant in his written statement, besides challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds further denied the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and specifically pleaded; having not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff or ever having put his LTI in the presence of the witnesses on any document relating to the plaintiff. The defendant specifically pleaded that the document alleged to be an agreement by the plaintiff, is in fact, a forged document prepared by the plaintiff with the collusion of the witnesses to grab the property of the defendant who is mentally disordered and is of unsound mind and he cannot even speak. The defendant learnt about the agreement when the notice of the suit was received and thereafter, he contacted the plaintiff on 15.08.2004 and enquired about the alleged agreement but the plaintiff abused and threatened of dire consequences and on 25.08.2004 at about 6.00 PM, when the defendant was in his house, the plaintiff came, using filthy language, assaulted the defendant with slaps and threatened to execute the sale deed and also tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of the defendant and then, the defendant approached the police, but the police refused to take any action and then, the defendant filed Complaint Case No. 738 of 2004 before learned CJM, Hazaribag. The defendant also denied receiving Rs. 10,000/-from the plaintiff.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, learned trial court settled the following eight issues :

I. Whether the suit of plaintiff is maintainable in its present form?

II. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties?

III. Is the suit barred by law of Estoppel, Waiver, Acquiescence and Res-Judicata?

IV. Whether suit of plaintiff is barred by law of Limitation?

V. Whether plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the present suit?

VI. Whether there was any agreement to sell the suit property between plaintiff and defendant on 29.06.2001?

VII. Whether plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract for sale and is still ready for the same within knowledge of defendant?

VIII. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for?

IX. Whether plaintiff is entitled for any other relief?

6. In support of their case, the plaintiff ex