The plaintiff must prove a valid agreement and readiness to perform for specific performance; failure to establish these elements results in dismissal of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court:-Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 12.10.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Khunti in Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No.94 of 2009 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court being the Munsif, Civil Court Khunti passed in Title Suit No. 07 of 2008 dated 19.05.2009 whereby and where under, the learned Munsif, Khunti decreed the suit on contest and directed the defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of such judgment and allowed the appeal on contest.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 07 of 2008 with a prayer for specific performance of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 with respect of the suit land and direct the defendant no.1 to execute and register the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the lands in suit within a time to be fixed by the court failing which the deed of sale be executed and registered through the process of court and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land be confirmed and in case, the plaintiff is not found in possession of the suit land, decree for recovery of possession be passed and the plaintiff be put in khas possession and additional prayer of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. Cost of the suit and other relief was prayed for.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendant no.1 was the owner of 14.5 decimals of land of which the suit land is exactly half being 7 ¼ decimals of land. The defendant no.1 executed a sale deed after permission of the same was accorded by the S.D.O., Khunti under Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act in respect of the rest half out of 14.5 decimals of land including the suit land which was owned by the defendant no.1 by a registered sale deed dated 23.12.2002. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 promised to execute and get registered sale deed with respect to the said land also on receipt of consideration money of Rs.30,000/-which was also paid by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1. The plaintiff also paid Rs.35,975/-on 25.11.2007 under receipt granted by the defendant no.1. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff has paid the entire consideration amount for 14.5 decimals of land amounting to Rs.65,975/-to the defendant no.1 but the defendant no.1 went on evading execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff has constructed rooms and other substantial construction over the suit land by investing quite and large sum of money. The defendant no.1 filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 1 of 2008 for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land claiming that the plaintiff has been inducted as a tenant over the suit land by the defendant no.1 even though the plaintiff all along was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

5. The defendant no.1 in his written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and denied the entire averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant no.1 took the specific plea that he inducted the plaintiff as a tenant even though the plaintiff is not a resident of Torpa police station. The defendant no.1 pleaded that the plaintiff taking advantage of the simplicity of the defendant no.1 in collusion with her husband brought the defendant no.1 to Khunti on 17.12.2002 and made him sign a blank application, which signature was used as signature on the application under Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The plaintiff also obtained signature of the defendant no.1 on several blank papers. The plaintiff did not pay the consid