The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of key legal provisions such as Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act in the context of specific performance of a contract of sale.

Siddharth, J.

Heard Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2018 passed by Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2016 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court no. 3, Agra in Original Suit No. 876 of 2014.

3. Plaintiff instituted a suit praying for a decree of specific performance of contract of sale.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sell regarding suit property for total sale consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs with the defendant and paid Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the defendant as part sale consideration and got the agreement registered on 06.11.2012; that on 30.11.2012 the defendant received the remaining amount of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and executed the receipt of payment; that on 23.06.2013 the plaintiff sent a legal notice calling the defendant to execute the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar on 30.06.2014; that the plaintiff reported his presence before the Sub-Registrar on 30.06.2014 in the morning and evening both but the defendant did not turned up for execution of the sale deed; that the plaintiff instituted Original Suit no. 876 of 2014 wherein, despite sufficient service of notice, defendant did not appeared and the suit was decreed ex-parte by the date and decree dated 18.05.2015 for the alternative relief of return of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the plaintiff by the defendant; that the plaintiff preferred a Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2016 before the lower appellate court which decreed the suit for the main relief and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months and aggrieved by the same, this second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

5. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is that it was specifically provided in the agreement that the sale deed shall be executed within a year from the date of execution of the agreement to sell. Thus, time was the essence of contract. The plaintiff did not requested the defendant to execute the sale deed either orally or in writing by means of notice in his favour or in favour of a person nominated by him, as per the terms of the agreement. It was after six months of the expiry of one year period provided in the agreement dated 06.11.2012 that the plaintiff gave notice dated 23.06.2014 to the defendant for executing the sale deed in his favour. Since time was essence of the contract and value of the suit property had appreciated manifold hence the defendant did not wished to sell his property. The trial court has recorded categorical finding that the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is suspicious coupled with the fact that the remaining amount of Rs. 7.5 lakhs has been paid in cash and receipt (chuktinama) is unregistered and not free from suspicion. On the basis of the aforesaid grounds the trial court denied the relief of specific performance of contract of sale to the plaintiff and decreed the suit for alternative relief of return of Rs. 2.50 lakhs, paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as part of the sale consideration. The appellate court has wrongly recorded the finding that there was no occasion for the plaintiff to send notice to the defendant within a year for executing the sale deed when the limitation for instituting the suit is three years.

6. He has further submitted that it is settled law that court is not always bound to decree the suit for specific performance of contract and it has discretion to refuse the same. The trial court rightly exercised the discretion and decreed the suit for alternative relief which has been interfered by the lower appellate court without recording adequate reasons for the same. The plaintiff only pleaded his readiness but there is no pleading in the plaint regarding his willingness. Even