The court affirmed that a plaintiff must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract to be entitled to specific performance of the agreement; otherwise, claims may be dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK RUSIA, J.

1. The plaintiffs-appellants (legal heirs of Plaintiff Late Radheshyam S/o Ramlal Porwal) filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) against judgment and decree dated 05.02.2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1996 by the learned Additional District Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain (M.P.) whereby the suit for specific performance of the contract has been dismissed.

The facts of the case in short are, as under:

2. Plaintiff Late Radheshyam S/o Ramlal Porwal filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against defendant No. 1-Bheru Singh S/o Ratan Singh Raghuwanshi and defendant No. 2 Omprakash S/o Banshilal Jaiswal. Defendant No. 1 is the owner of a house constructed on land (measuring 65 sq. ft. x 10 sq. ft.) bearing House No. 97, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nagda, District Ujjain (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as the suit house). The plaintiff (Late Radheshyam S/o Ramlal Porwal) and defendant No. 1 (Bheru Singh S/o Ratan Singh Raghuwanshi) entered into an agreement to sell dated 27.07.1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the agreement) in respect of the sale of the suit house for a total consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- (rupees three lakhs twenty-five thousand only). The aforesaid agreement was signed in the presence of the witnesses and the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.31,000/- (rupees thirty-one thousand only) as an advance, and did agree to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,94,000/- (rupees two lakhs ninety-four thousand only) within 4 months on or before 26.11.1988. When within 4 sale deed could not be executed parties again agreed that in the month of January 1989, after discussion, they would fix the date to get the sale deed executed. Thereafter, on 30.01.1989, it was agreed between them to execute the sale deed in the month of March 1989.

3. According to the plaintiff, after March 1989, he requested several times to defendant No. 1 to get the sale deed executed, but he only gave assurance and passed the time. Three months from the date of execution of the agreement, the prices of the property have gone high therefore a doubt came to the mind of the plaintiff, that defendant No. 1 because of this hike in the prices is avoiding the registration of the sale deed. Accordingly, the plaintiff sent a registered notice on 19.06.1991 to defendant No. 1, which he received on 26.06.1991; and thereafter, when the sale deed was not executed, the plaintiff filed the suit on 12.08.1991. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

4. On 11.02.1992, the first time, defendant No. 1 appeared and sought time to file a written statement. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff was required to pay the remaining amount within a period of four months and get the sale deed executed within four months. The aforesaid time was extended up to January 1989 for execution of the sale deed, but the plaintiff could not arrange the money for payment of the remaining amount of sale consideration.

5. It is further pleaded in a written statement by defendant No. 1 that on 03.03.1989 his mother expired, therefore, he was in need of money. Thereafter, on 25.03.1989, his aunt also expired. H