IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity for a plaintiff to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract is crucial in specific performance cases, especially when significant time has elapsed since the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

(Alka Sarin, J.)

The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant aggrieved by the judgments and decrees dated 30.09.2015 and 10.07.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.08.1995 of Shop-cum-Flat No.8, New Anaj Mandi, Kharar ad measuring 15 feet x 80 feet partially built executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondents - Ramji Dass - who subsequently died on 21.03.1996, after executing sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on payment of balance sale consideration after deducting Rs.1,00,000/- already paid by the plaintiff appellant to Ramji Dass and in the alternative a decree for Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-appellant that no final date was set for the execution of the sale deed, rather it was settled that Ramji Dass would procure no objection certificate (NOC) and thereafter the sale deed would be executed. It was further the case that Ramji Dass predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondents kept postponing the procurement of NOC, hence, the sale deed could not be executed. After his death, the plaintiff-appellant approached the legal heirs of Ramji Dass who again promised to get NOC and execute the sale deed. Further amount of Rs.70,000/- was alleged to have been received by defendant-respondent No.1 and a receipt was also alleged to have been executed. It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On notice, the defendant-respondents filed their written statement and denied the execution of the agreement to sell. It was further stated that in the year 1995 the value of the suit property was Rs.10 Lacs and that there was no reason for them to have agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.1,23,000/-. It was further the stand taken that the suit was time-barred. It was further averred that at the time of filing of the suit i.e. in the year 2008, the value of the suit property was more than Rs. One Crore. Replication was filed wherein the contents of the written statement were denied and those of the plaint were reiterated.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as owner by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.8.1995? OPP

1A. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP

II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

IIA. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. double of the earnest money of Rs.1 lac with interest from the defendants ? OPP

III. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

IV. Relief.

4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2015 held the plaintiff-appellant entitled to the alternate relief of recovery of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant before the First Appellate Court which appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.2019. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that once the defendant-respondents had denied the agreement to sell they could not have questioned the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff-appellant. It is further the contention that the findings of both the Courts that the plaintiff-appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell are illegal and perverse. In support of his contentions he has relied on Sant Singh vs. Amarjit Singh [2015(2) PLR 497] to contend that once the execution of agreement to sell was denied, the defendant could not have raised the plea of readiness and willingness. Further reliance has been