The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of readiness and willingness, the challenge to the notice of cancellation, and the presence of an assignment clause in determining the maintainability of a suit for specific performance.

Amit Rawal, J.

1. This order of mine shall dispose of three regular second appeal bearing Nos. 3494 to 3496 of 2010. The appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby judgment and decree of the trial court granting the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, has been set aside.

2. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the agreement to sell dated 29.09.1993 was entered into between defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and plaintiff No. 3, Ashwani Kumar Bansal. In the aforementioned agreement, Ashwani Kumar Bansal, plaintiff No. 3, had entered into agreement to sell dated 29.09.1993 with defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of land measuring 71 kanals 13 marlas for a total consideration of Rs. 26,88,875/- lacs against the payment of Rs. 1 lac as earnest money. The stipulated date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 30.11.1993. The defendants sold the property vide sale deeds dated 31.03.1994 and 11.04.1994 and the defendants i.e. the subsequent vendees taken the plea of the bona-fide purchasers in the written statement but the same was negated by the trial Court, for, they were residents of the same village and therefore, they had the knowledge of existence of the agreement to sell.

3. The trial court found that the appellants-plaintiffs had been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and in exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the trial Court decreed the suit but the lower Appellate Court reversed the same allowing the appeal filed by the defendants, holding that the defendant Nos.3 to 8 were bona fide purchasers. The lower Appellate Court had assigned no reasons, much less, discussed the evidence while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in S. Sankaran v. D. Kausalya, JT 2007 (4) SC 251 and Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497.

4. He further submits that once the trial Court exercised the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the lower Appellate Court has to be very circumspect in reversing the same unless and until there is gross illegality, perversity or misreading of the agreement. In respect of his contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C. Arulappan v. Smt. Ahalya Naik, AIR 2001 SC 2783.

5. As regards the argument with regard to rice in prices, the same was not the ground for declining the relief. No doubt, the suit was filed on 27.11.1996 viz-a-viz the target date of 30.11.1993 but since no objection has been taken with regard to the delay, therefore, in view of the ratio decidendi culled out from the judgment of Supreme Court in S.V.R. Mudaliar (dead) by LRs. and others v. Mrs. Rajababu F. Buhari (dead) by LRs. and others, AIR 1995 SC 1607, the respondents-defendants could not take such plea, much less, could not have been taken into consideration by the lower Appellate Court. He further relies upon the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment of Supreme Court in K. Prakash v. B.R. Sampath Kumar, AIR 2015 SC 9 to contend that once the trial Court has exercised the discretion, the lower Appellate Court should not interfere or exercise the discretion against the grant of specific performance on sympathetic consideration, much less, extraneous consideration.

6. As regards the cancellation of the agreement to sell and forfeiture, no objection viz-a-viz the same has been taken, except a passing reference in para 8 of the written statement. The alleged legal notice was never received by the plaintiff No. 3 Ashwani Kumar Bansal and therefore, the dictum of law laid down in I.S. Sikandar (dead) by LRs. v. K. Subramani and others, (2013) 15 SCC 27 would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the judgment and decree pas