The court ruled that a decree for specific performance should be granted if the plaintiff consistently demonstrates readiness and willingness, irrespective of the phrasing in pleadings, provided that the agreement was valid.

JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Malik, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Amit Malik, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Mr. Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 5.9.2003 against the defendant-appellant which was registered as Original Suit No.602 of 2005. In the plaint it was alleged that agreement dated 5.9.2003 was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant for sale of ½ share of khasara no.1411, area 2.326 hect. for consideration of Rs.2,60,000/- and Rs.2,48,000/- was paid as earnest money before the Registrar and remaining Rs.12,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The time period for execution of sale deed mentioned in agreement to sell was 1 year. The defendant has filed his written statement, stating that he was in need of Rs.2,00,000/- for his personal work but he never intended to sell his property as plot no.1411 is the only source of maintenance of his family. Before the trial court, 7 issues were framed. The parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases. The trial court while deciding issue nos. 1, 3 and 7, has recorded finding that valid agreement to sell dated 5.9.2003 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant but defendant has not executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff, hence, the suit for specific performance has been rightly filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial court while deciding the issue no.2, relating to readiness and willingness, has recorded finding that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his contract in pursuance of agreement to sell dated 5.9.2003. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 7.2.2011, decreed the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of contract and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed within a period of one month in pursuance of agreement to sell dated 5.9.2003 after getting the balance consideration from the plaintiff. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 7.2.2011, civil appeal was filed before the District Judge and the same was registered as Civil Appeal No.46/2011. The aforementioned appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, Court no.13, Agra. In the aforementioned civil appeal, three points of determination were framed by the court. The 1^st appellate court considering the finding recorded by the trial court, has held that agreement to sell dated 5.9.2003 (paper no.9-Ka) was rightly executed between the plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his contract in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 5.9.2003. The 1^st appellate court has also taken into consideration the provisions of Section 20 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT and has held that decree for specific performance has been rightly granted by the trial court in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 5.9.2003. The 1^st appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2022 dismissed the civil appeal filed by the defendant. Hence, this second appeal on behalf of the defendant for the following relief:-

“Relief sought through this appeal is that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Agra, dismissing the Civil Appeal No.46 of 2011 and affirming judgment and decree dated 7.2.2011 passed by Civil Judge, Agra in Original Suit No.602 of 2005 (Raghuveer Singh vs. Ramgiri).”

3.