The court emphasized the importance of proving readiness and willingness in a suit for specific performance and clarified the necessity of issuing notice to the defendants.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession. Plaintiff also sought a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell, if the defendants are proved to be legal representatives of Smt. Shanti Devi widow of Krishan. In the alternative, plaintiff had also prayed for passing a decree for recovery of Rs.1,40,000/-.

3. Plaintiff had pleaded that late Smt. Shanti Devi had entered into an agreement to sell with respect to the plot in question with the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- and Shanti Devi had received Rs.90,000/- as earnest money. Plaintiff had further pleaded that as per agreement to sell, the possession of the plot was also handed over to the plaintiff. As per agreement to sell, the date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 10.11.1999. Smt. Shanti Devi died on 07.10.1999 i.e. before the date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with the assertion that his possession is being interfered with. Plaintiff also sought a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 06/07.05.1997.

4. Defendants, on the other hand, pleaded that the defendants have become owner of the property in dispute on the death of Smt. Shanti Devi. Defendants disputed that the possession of the suit property was given to the plaintiff. It was admitted that Smt. Shanti Devi had died issueless. It was further pleaded that Smt. Shanti Devi never entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff.

5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the file, held that the agreement to sell is proved. Even payment of Rs.90,000/- as earnest money is also proved. Learned trial Court further found that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property pursuant to the aforesaid agreement to sell. However, the learned trial Court refused to grant specific performance of the agreement to sell on the ground that plaintiff has asserted in the plaint that the defendants have no concern with the suit property.

6. Learned Court further found that plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract throughout. Learned Court further found that the plaintiff did not issue notice to the defendants before filing the suit and, therefore, plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

7. Two appeals were preferred. One by the plaintiff and other by the defendants. Learned First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals. Learned First Appellate Court further held that it is not proved as to how much area was owned by Smt. Shanti Devi, therefore, decree for specific performance cannot be granted.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through record of the case.

9. In my opinion, the following substantial questions of law arise in the present case:-

1. Whether it is permissible for the Court to deny the decree for specific performance by exercising the discretion in absence of substantive reason for denial of the same?

2. Whether the judgments passed by the Courts below are result of misreading of the evidence?

3. Whether it is absolutely necessary to prove the visit to the office of the Sub Registrar by the proposed vendee to prove his readiness and willingness?

10. Plaintiff had pleaded in the plaint that Smt. Shanti Devi had died issueless, which is an admitted fact. Plaintiff had further pleaded that the defendants, who claimed to be legal heirs of brother of father-in-law have no concern with the land. However, in the alternative, plaintiff did plead that if the defendants are able to establish their right in the property then decree for specific performance be passed.

11. In my considered o