For specific performance, a plaintiff must demonstrate both readiness and willingness, alongside proven agreement execution, to succeed.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.

This first appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13-10-2001, passed by Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Regular Civil Suit No. 167A/1994, by which the suit filed by plaintiff/appellant for specific performance of contract has been dismissed.

2. Original plaintiff - Ummed Singh died during the pendency of suit, and accordingly, his legal representatives were brought on record. This appeal is being pursued by the legal representatives of original plaintiff -Ummed Singh.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that a house bearing old Municipal No. 14/642 (new No. 10/573) situated in Kota Wala Mohalla, Gwalior is the disputed property. It was pleaded that the house in question belongs to the defendants and eight tenants are in possession of the property. One room is lying vacant, and in that room goods of the plaintiff are kept, and the room is locked by plaintiff. Other tenants, namely, Ram Charan, Naresh Rajoria, Vanshi, widow of Ramsingh, Kamla, Harveer Sikarwar, Hari Kulshrestha, Kashi Nath, Narayan Singh, have verbally handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff and have also agreed to pay rent to the plaintiff. It is submitted that aforesaid arrangement has been made by the defendants themselves. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 - Karan Singh was the karta of joint Hindu family property, and in his absence, defendant No. 2 - Lakhan Singh was looking after the property, being the manager of joint Hindu family property. Thus, it was pleaded that both of them are entitled and empowered to enter into an agreement on behalf other family members of the joint Hindu family. Accordingly, plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase the said house for a consideration of Rs. 46,000/- and paid Rs. 3,000/- by way of advance. The agreement to sell was executed on 9-8-1986. It was agreed that the sale deed shall be executed by 30-11-1986. It was further pleaded that now defendants Nos. 1 and 2, with dishonest intentions, are talking to defendant No. 3 for sale of the house. Accordingly, on 21-8-1986, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 requested the plaintiff to take his advance money back because they are going to purchase the property, otherwise, the plaintiff would face dire consequences. When the plaintiff inquired from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 then plaintiff was informed that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are intending to sell the house to defendants Nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 also requested the plaintiff to take his advance money back and made it clear that they would not alienate the house to the plaintiff, but they would sell the house to defendants Nos. 3 and 4 only. It was also threatened that in case if the plaintiff creates some trouble, then defendants are capable to deal with the plaintiff. Thus it was pleaded that it is clear that defendants are now not intending to alienate the property, whereas plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It was further stated that plaintiff is ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 43,000/- and is ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. It was further pleaded that very soon, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 will execute the sale deed in favor of defendants Nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, suit for specific performance of contract was filed.

4. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and admitted that the property belonged to defendants Nos. 1 and