The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove financial capacity and willingness to perform the contract, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. - The appellant-defendant (appellant herein) is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nuh, whereby, an appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mewat, dismissing the suit for specific performance filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff, has been allowed.

2. Facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondent plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance with the averments that an agreement to sell dated 30.10.2009 was executed between the parties regarding the suit land measuring 5 kanals. It has been stated in the plaint that the total sale consideration was Rs.25 lakhs, out of which, an amount of Rs.8,50,000/-was paid as earnest money and remaining sale consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed i.e. 15.09.2010. It has been further stated that on 14.09.2010 i.e. one day prior to the target date, the respondent-plaintiff approached appellant defendant for execution of sale deed on 15.09.2010, however, the appellant- defendant showed his bonafide inability to appear before the Registrar on 15.09.2010 and requested for fixing of some other date in this regard. It has been further submitted that a legal notice dated 25.04.2012 was served upon the respondent-plaintiff calling upon him to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed, however, the needful was not done by the appellant-defendant, accordingly, a suit for specific performance was filed on 14.06.2012.

3. The appellant-defendant appeared and filed his written statement controverting the pleadings set-up by the respondent-plaintiff. In the written statement, it was submitted that in fact, no agreement to sell as alleged, was ever executed between the parties and the same was just a loan transaction and for the said purpose his thumb impression on certain blank papers and blank cheques were obtained by the respondent-plaintiff.

4. Learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014 though, recorded a finding in favour of the respondent-plaintiff as regards the execution of agreement to sell, however, non-suited him on account of having failed to prove his readiness and willingness.

5. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014, the respondent-plaintiff filed first appeal and the same has been allowed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Nuh, vide its judgment and decree dated 01.11.2014 granting him relief by way of decree for specific performance.

6. First Appellate Court upheld the finding in favour of the respondent-plaintiff as regards the factum of execution of the agreement in question, disbelieving the plea raised by the appellant-defendant regarding signatures/ thumb impression having been obtained on blank paper. The learned first Appellate Court, however, reversed the finding on the point of readiness and willingness and resultantly granted decree for specific performance in favour of respondent-plaintiff.

7. By way of present appeal, the aforesaid judgment passed by the first Appellate Court has been impugned herein.

8. It has been contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent-plaintiff has failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement. He further submits that the respondent-plaintiff has not been able to prove his visit on 14.09.2010 to the house of the appellant-defendant. He also submits that the service of legal notice dated 21.04.2012 at the instance of respondent-plaintiff has also not been proved. He also contends that learned first Appellate Court has not specifically and categorically reversed the reasoning recorded by the learned trial court while arriving at a conclusion that the responde