The court affirmed that a plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform a contract must be evaluated based on conduct, and an assignment of rights does not negate the right to seek specific performance.

J U D G M E N T

Challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, decreeing the suit for specific performance, the unsuccessful defendant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.24,60,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 10.01.2008 and executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff. It was agreed between the parties that the remaining sale consideration would be paid within a period of 90 days. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Pursuant to the agreement, further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has also been paid towards balance sale consideration on 28.03.2008 and therefore, the plaintiff had to pay only Rs.12,00,000/-, for which, he was always ready and willing.

4. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant has delayed the execution of the sale even after receipt of the balance sale consideration and therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 24.04.2009. The defendant has also sent a reply, expressing his readiness to complete the sale. The plaintiff also sent a rejoinder on 05.05.2009. However, the defendant has not come forward to execute the sale deed, which forced the plaintiff to file a suit.

5. In the written statement, the defendant, except making an evasive denial, stated that he never intended to sell the property. The property is worth about Rs.90,00,000/- and therefore, there was no necessity for him to execute an agreement for sale of the property for a meagre sum of Rs.24,60,000/-. According to the defendant, he had executed the agreement as a security for the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- borrowed by him and he also denied that he received Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff subsequently. In the additional written statement, it was stated that while availing the loan of Rs.2,50,000/-, the plaintiff has obtained signatures on the blank papers in order to grab the property. The legal notice has been sent only on 17.04.2009 and hence, the defendant opposed the suit.

6. The Trial Court, based on the above pleadings framed the following issues:

i) Whether it is true that the defendant has executed the sale agreement only in a loan transaction for borrowal of Rs.2,50,000/-?

ii) Whether it is true that the defendant has borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- and executed the sale agreement for sale?

iii) Whether it is true that the defendant has not received Rs.10,00,000/- on 28.03.2008?

iv) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

v) Whether the defendant is liable to execute a sale deed after receipt of sale consideration of Rs.12,10,000/-?

vi) In the event of failure on the part of the defendant to execute the sale deed, whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed through Court of Law?

vii) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

7. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were marked.

8. The Trial Court, after appreciation of the material documents and evidence, disbelieved the evidence of the defendant and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the present appeal has been filed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly submit that as per Ex.A1, 90 days' time has been agreed between the parties and the said 90 days expired on 09.04.2008 itself. Though the defendant is said to have paid another Rs.10,00,000/- on 28.03.2008, the remaining sale consideration has not been paid. Legal Notice has been issued only on 17.04.2009 and the suit has been filed on 28.08.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the plaintiff has not proved his readiness and willingness at the inception. When the agreement stipulates a specifie