The plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and alternative reliefs should be sought if specific performance is not granted.

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

This is the second appeal of the plaintiff who filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement entered into by him with the respondent-defendant on 19.02.2005, for the sale of a plot measuring 311 sq. yards, (fully described in the headnote of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge), situated at Dhandran, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

He further sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property in any manner.

2. The case set up by the appellant, as taken from the judgments of the Courts below, was that the defendant being the owner in possession of the aforesaid plot, had agreed to sell it to the appellant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20,43,270/-, with earnest money of Rs. 4,00,000/- stated to have been paid on the date of the agreement, i.e. 19.02.2005. The date fixed for executing the sale deed was 15.05.2005 and in between, on 28.02.2005, another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is stated to have been paid to the respondent-defendant by the appellant.

15.05.2005 being a Sunday, the appellant asked the respondent to come to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana, on 16.05.2005 but allegedly she did not respond properly and also did not turn up in the office of the Sub-Registrar. However, the appellant stated that he went to the said office and got his affidavit attested to that effect by the Executive Magistrate, marking his presence in the office on 16.05.2005.

3. As per the appellant-plaintiff, thereafter on 25.06.2007, the respondent sent him a “false legal notice” cancelling the agreement “dated 16.01.2005” (shown in the notice - as per the appellant-plaintiff - to be 16.01.2005, but actually being the agreement dated 19.02.2005). The said notice also informed the appellant-plaintiff with regard to forfeiture of the earnest money paid by him.

Thereafter, the appellant again approached the respondent, requesting her to execute the sale deed but allegedly she postponed the matter and consequently, the appellant got a notice-cum-reminder served upon her on 06.02.2008, requesting her to execute the sale deed on 15.02.2008.

It was further alleged that the respondent neither replied to that notice nor executed the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant. He further stated that he again appeared in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 15.02.2008 and marked his presence there. Thereafter, he received a reply dated 12.02.2008 to his reminder dated 06.02.2008, “admitting the contents of the agreement”.

Consequently, alleging that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the respondent having failed to execute the sale deed in his favour and then having threatened to alienate the suit property, he filed the suit on 29.02.2008, out of which this second appeal arises.

4. Upon notice issued to her by the learned Civil Judge, Ludhiana, the respondent-defendant appeared through her counsel and filed a written statement, first taking the usual preliminary objections of it being a false and frivolous suit etc. and thereafter stating that the plaintiff did not perform his part of the agreement, which therefore stood cancelled with the earnest money forfeiting to the defendant.

The factum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in all having been paid to her was admitted, as was the date fixed in the agreement for execution and registration of the sale deed, i.e. 15.05.2005. It was further contended in the reply of the present respondent-defendant that the plaintiff never remained ready to perform his part of the agreement as he did not have sufficient funds to pay the balance consideration and that as a matter of fact, the defendant also had come to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 16.05.2005 to execute the sale deed but despite her remaining present in that office through out the day, the plaintiff did not turn up.

She too got her presence marked by way of an affidavit attested on that very day, showing her presence in the office of the Sub-Regis