The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J.

1. Appellant/defendant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 20.12.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal whereby set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hathin and decreed the suit for possession and specific performance, against the appellant-defendant and in favour of respondent/plaintiff.

2. For easy reference, the parties to the lis, hereinafter shall be referred to by their original status in the suit.

3. In brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for possession by way of specific performance, with material averments that defendant entered into an agreement dated 13.01.2006 with him, for sale of his land measuring 16 Kanal, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, situated within Revenue Estate of village Khokiyaka, Tehsil defendant received Rs. 37,45,000/- from him as part payment, and reduced into writing the agreement to sell with certain conditions as detailed in the agreement (and reproduced by the learned trial Court in para No. 2 of the judgment). One of the conditions of the agreement was to get the sale deed executed and registered on 12.06.2016.

4. It is further averred by the plaintiff since 12.06.2016 was holiday and office of Sub-Registrar, Hathin was closed, he after intimating the defendants, visited the office of Sub-Registrar on 13.06.2016, along with balance sale price and stamp expenses etc. and waited for the defendant for execution and registration of the sale deed but defendant intentionally and deliberately did not come and plaintiff marked his presence.

5. The plaintiff pleaded that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He orally many times requested the defendant to do the needful also sent a legal notice dated 04.06.2018 requesting to conclude the agreement to sell, but all in vain. Rather, defendant threatened to alienate the suit land to third person, and finally on 14.06.2018, refused to perform his part of the contract, that necessitated him to file the suit.

6. Upon being put to notice, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement, denying the execution of agreement to sell or receiving any sale consideration amount from the plaintiff under the alleged agreement to sell. The defendant, pleaded that he had financial relationship with plaintiff, since 2013, and had availed loans from the plaintiff on various occasions. He used to execute agreement to sell as security for re-payment of Lastly, he obtained loan from plaintiff in year 2015, and in year 2016, defendant owned an amount of Rs.18 lacs to the plaintiff and executed agreement to sell in question as security of the said loan, with usual understanding that on repayment of loan, the plaintiff would cancel the agreement to sell. On 04.07.2016, he repaid Rs.20 lacs inclusive interest to Ramesh, nephew of the plaintiff, who further gave said amount to Ritesh, another nephew of the plaintiff, who gave the amount to plaintiff. He repaid the amount and nothing was due to the plaintiff, and he requested for the cancellation of the agreement to sell. However, the plaintiff became dishonest and filed the present suit on false facts, misusing the agreement to sell. A prayer was made to dismiss the suit.

7. From the contest of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession and injunction as prayed in the plaint? OPP

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

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come in the court with clean hands? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Relief

8. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff (PW-1), deposed as per the plaint. Shiv