Point of Law - Section 16 (c) of the Act of 1963 provides that specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him (Para 26).

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is defendant-III set/appellants’ second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2022 passed by the District Judge, Aligarh in Civil Appeal No. 132 of 2016 arising out of Original Suit No. 849 of 1987, and judgment and decree dated 28.10.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Aligarh in Original Suit No. 849 of 1987.

3. This appeal has a chequered history. A brief description is necessary for better appreciation of the case, which is as follows;

4. Plaintiff respondent nos. 1 and 2 entered into a registered agreement of sale with one Jaswant Singh, the original defendant Ist set/respondent on 26.08.1985 for the sale of bhumidhari land for Rs. 98,195 for which an advance of Rs. 5000/-was given at the time of agreement of sale and balance amount of Rs. 93,195/-was to be paid by the plaintiff respondent at the time of execution of sale-deed. According to the agreement to sale the sale-deed was to be executed within four months on taking balance sale consideration and defendant (deceased Jaswant Singh) was to take necessary permission of sale, if any.

5. According to the plaintiff respondent several requests were made with the defendant to obtain income tax exemption certificate but the sale-deed was not executed. Thus, a letter was sent by the plaintiff respondent to the defendant (deceased Jaswant Singh) on 05.12.1985 calling upon him to appear in the office of Sub-Registrar, Koil, Aligarh with income tax exemption certificate on 24.12.1985. When the defendant did not reach the office of Sub-Registrar, on his request the sale-deed was to be executed on 26.12.1985. On that day again, the defendant did not reach the office of Sub-Registrar and gave excuse that once the certificate is received regarding exemption from the Income Tax Department, he will execute the sale-deed. When the sale-deed was not executed by the defendant, the plaintiff respondent filed Original Suit No. 849 of 1987 on 26.10.1987 claiming relief of specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff respondent against the defendant and defendant be directed to execute the sale-deed after taking balance sale consideration of Rs. 93,195/-. An alternate plea was also taken that in case the relief cannot be legally granted then decree of return of Rs. 5000/-pendente lite in future be passed in favour of plaintiff respondent and against the defendant. The defendant (deceased Jaswant Singh) on 28.10.1987 executed a sale-deed in favour of one Ravi Prakash Agrawal. The said transferee through sale-deed dated 08.03.1988 transferred the said property in favour of present appellants’ predecessor as well as the appellant.

6. Original Suit No. 849 of 1987 filed by the plaintiff respondent no. 1 was decreed ex parte on 05.12.1989. The trial court had directed the heirs of late Jaswant Singh to execute registered sale-deed in favour of plaintiff after depositing the balance amount of Rs. 93,195/-The heirs of defendant Ist set (deceased Jaswant Singh) filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 05.12.1989. In the meantime, the ex parte decree was put into execution which was registered as Execution Case No. 36 of 1990 and an amount of Rs. 93,195/-was deposited by the decree holder before the execution court. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was allowed on 07.03.1998. The trial court again decreed the suit under Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. on 28.11.2000 directing for refund of Rs. 5000/-alongwith 12% interest per annum. The judgment and decree of trial court was put to challenge by the plaintiff respondent nos. 1 and 2 by filing Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2001 requesting that the suit be decreed for relief of specific performance of the contract. The said