A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to fulfill the contract's terms, especially when time is considered essential, otherwise relief can be denied.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Defendent-Vendor is in appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position before the Court of the First instance i.e. appellant as defendant and respondent as plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2006 qua residential house constructed on 215 Square Yards as described in the plaint.

4. Plaintiff claimed that defendant agreed to sell the suit property in his favour for a valuable consideration of Rs.30,51,000/- on 03.02.2006 and received earnest money of Rs.7,50,000/-. Parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on the payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.23,01,000/- on or before 03.05.2006. Plaintiff claimed to have remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Sirsa on the target date i.e., 03.05.2006 with the balance sale consideration. Defendant failed to come present. Thereafter, he made repeated requests to the defendant to execute the sale deed and finally served legal notice on her through his counsel on 12.08.2008 calling upon her to fix any date within 15 days from the receipt of the notice and execute the sale deed in his favour. Defendant having failed to respond to the same, plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession by way of specific performance.

5. Suit was contested by the defendant. On facts, defendant admitted execution of agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit property for total sale consideration of Rs.30,51,000/-. Receipt of Rs.7,50,000/- as earnest money was also admitted. Defendant however claimed that she remained present along with her husband on the agreed date in the office of Sub Registrar, Sirsa, upto 5:00 PM. She got her presence marked by swearing an affidavit. It was duly executed/attested by Executive Magistrate, Sirsa. It was further pleaded by the defendant that after she entered into agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff, her husband Mohari Ram entered into an agreement to purchase a residential house for a consideration of Rs.19,65,000/-. Her husband paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the vendor. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.05.2006 on payment of balance consideration. It was to be paid out of the sale consideration received from the plaintiff on 03.05.2006. Thus time was the essence of the agreement to sell. Plaintiff having failed to perform his part on 03.05.2006, defendant and her husband could not purchase the other property. Defendant further claimed that several requests were made to the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed and registered. However, he refused to perform his part as there was dip in the rates of the property. Defendant thus pleaded that it is the plaintiff who was neither ready nor willing to perform his part and is thus not entitled for relief of specific performance.

6. Court of the First Instance put suit to trial, framing following issues:

'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of sale agreement dated 03.02.2006?

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

5. Relief.'

7. While deciding issue No.1, Trial Court came to the conclusion that both the parties proved their presence. Their respective affidavits attested by the Su