The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform an agreement of sale, and the court's discretion to consider the time schedule for completion of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules,1956 to direct the defendants to specifically enforce the agreement of sale by executing the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee of the scheduled mentioned property after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.2.25 crores and hand over the vacant possession of the same free of all encumbrances morefully described in the schedule of in the alternative directing the defendant to pay damages which is valued moderately at Rs.2 crores only together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as per custom and contract from this date to till the date of realization and to return of advance amount of Rs.10 lakhs only, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of agreement, i.e, 01.07.2005, till the date of realization which has been agreed between both the parties to the sale agreement dated 01.07.2015 as per clause 14 of the agreement with costs.

1. This Civil Suit was originally filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, 1956, for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees in respect of the schedule mentioned property after accepting the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,25,00,000/- and to hand over the vacant possession of the property free of all encumbrances and failing such compliance by the defendant, the Court shall execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff.

I. PLEADINGS:

(i) Plaintiff’s case:

The case of the plaintiff that can be deduced from the original Plaint, (which is rather economical with words) and the amended plaint (which is an elaborate narrative) is as follows:

(1) The defendant offered to sell the suit schedule property which belonged to him to the plaintiff. After negotiations, the parties had reduced into writing the terms of their Agreement under an Agreement of Sale dated 01.07.2005. As per the terms of the Agreement, the plaintiff had agreed to purchase their property for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,35,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was paid as advance vide a Cheque dated 02.07.2005. It is the plaintiff’s case that though the defendant had assured that he would get all the documents for the plaintiff’s scrutiny this assurance was observed in the breach. The plaintiff would submit that despite assuring him that he would settle the issues with Kalanther Naina Mohamed (hereinafter called Naina Mohamed) the defendant had failed to do so. In fact, there was a suit in C.S.No.486 of 2003 filed by Naina Mohamed which had to be withdrawn. The plaintiff’s case is that though he was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, the defendant had failed in his obligations. On 06.06.2008, the plaintiff had informed the defendant vide a registered letter that he is ready and willing to go ahead with the Sale there was no response from the defendant. The Legal Notice dated 17.06.2008 also evoked the same reaction. Hence, the suit. In the amended Plaint, the plaintiff sought for the alternative relief of the refund of the advance amount.

(ii) Defendant’s case:

The Written Statement and the Additional Written Statement matched the length of the Plaint. In the Additional Written Statement, though the defendant had denied the factum of his agreeing to sell the suit property however in his earlier narrative in the original Written Statement, the defendant would contend that the Agreement to sell the property was forced on him due to his impecunious state and the plaintiff had been fully apprised of the fact that only if his creditors are settled the documents would not come into his hands. The plaintiff who was fully aware of this fact had not come forward to make further payments which would clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff was not possessed with the requisite funds