The court established that a plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 09.09.2015 (decree signed on 14.09.2015), by learned District Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 136 of 2012, whereby the Appeal has been allowed. The 1st Appellate Court has set aside the judgment dated 25.09.2012 (decree signed on 10.10.2012) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VI, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 52 of 2005, whereby the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract instituted by the plaintiff.

3. The following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration :

a) Whether the contradictory interpretation of exhibit-1 by both the lower court below gives rise to a substantial question of law as one of the co-sharer is not a party to thus any such alienation by virtue of said agreement in question is not sustainable in the eyes of law?

b) Whether the failure of the plaintiff with cogent evidence to demonstrate his willingness to perform his part of the agreement with the defendants debars the plaintiff to have specific performance of contract as per Section 16(c) of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT ?”

Arguments of the appellants (defendants)

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the core of the dispute is in connection with the agreement of sale dated 05.07.2003 (exhibit-1) which was said to be entered on the one hand between the 7 legal heirs and successors of late Dasrath Prasad Swarnkar (in whose name the property was standing) and Sri Hasmukh Thacker on the other hand. She submits that admittedly the daughters of late Dasrath Prasad Swarnkar were not party to the said agreement and one son namely, Rajesh Kumar Verma, was not a signatory to the said agreement, as he did not sign the agreement and the agreement did not reveal that one or the other co-sharers of the property was authorized to act on behalf of said Rajesh Kumar Verma. She submits that though Rajesh Kumar Verma was not a signatory to the agreement, he was made party as defendant No. 4 in the suit and the written statement was filed on behalf of all the defendants stating that defendant No. 4 was not a signatory to the agreement.

5. The learned counsel has further submitted that as per the agreement, the total consideration amount with respect to the property was Rs.78,000/- out of which Rs.53,500/- was said to have been paid and remaining amount was Rs.24,500/- and the agreement reveals that the vendors were to execute and register a proper sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of 2 months from the date of the agreement at cost and expenses of the purchaser (plaintiff) on receipt of balance consideration amount of Rs.24,500/- only before Registering Authority at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was also stipulated that if the vendors fails to execute and register a proper sale deed within the stipulated time, the purchaser (plaintiff) shall be at liberty to make the vendors bound to executed and register the sale deed in favour of the purchaser (plaintiff) with the help of Court.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that the agreement was executed on 05.07.2003 and two months expired on 05.09.2003 but the case was instituted seeking Specific Performance of Contract on 06.04.2005 and in the plaint there is no specific averment as to what steps the plaintiff had taken to show his readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed within 2 months from the agreement and even till the filing of the suit . The learned counsel has relied upon t