The main legal point established in the judgment is that to succeed in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the obligations in terms of the contract. The court found that the plaintiff's actions did not conclusively prove readiness for getting the sale deed registered, and the advocate's notice issued by the plaintiff was not in time.

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 19.10.2012 delivered in Title Appeal No.70 of 2006 by the Addl. District Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment, the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit No.09 of 2005 has been reversed. Against that reversal finding the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. As consequence of the impugned judgment dated 19.10.2012, the suit instituted by him being Title Suit No.09 of 2005 has been dismissed even though the trial court, the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura in persuant to the judgment dated 28.07.2006 decreed the suit.

2. At the time of admitting this appeal the following substantial questions of law were formulated for hearing by the order dated 13.02.2013:

“(i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse?

(ii) Whether the findings of the first appellate Court that the preparation of draft sale deed and purchasing of stamp paper is the primary ingredient of proving the readiness and willingness on the part of the appellant is correct.

(iii) Any other substantial question of law may be formulated at the time of hearing of the matter.”

The essential fact may be relevant for having the context be noted at the outset for consideration of this appeal.

3. On 11.07.2004, an unregistered deed of agreement for sale and purchase was executed between the parties and the plaintiff-appellant paid a sum of Rs.52,000/- as the earnest money. It was stipulated in the said agreement that the remainder of the consideration money i.e. Rs.2,36,250/- will be paid by the plaintiff within the first week of Bhadra, 1411 B.S. corresponding to 24th August, 2004 A.D. After receiving the full consideration money i.e. Rs.2,88,250/- the defendant No.1 [now deceased] shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff claimed to have approached the defendant No.1 [now deceased] with the balance amount of Rs.2,36,250/, but the defendant No.1 [since deceased] was reluctant to accept the said amount on this or that pretext. On 15.08.2004, the plaintiff again approached the defendant No.1 [now deceased], but he again refused to accept the said sum. On 20.08.2004, the plaintiff, the appellant herein went to the house of the defendant No.1 with a deed-writer but he refused to accept the money. However he had assured that he would be coming to the office of the sub-registrar for executing sale deed and to deposit the money safely in his bank account. The plaintiff served a notice to the defendant No.1 with a request to execute the sale deed in his favour, but without any result and hence the suit for specific performance has been instituted by the plaintiff, the appellant herein.

4. The defendants however contested the suit by filing the written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. It has been asserted that by them as per terms of the agreement the plaintiff did not pay the balance amount to the defendant No.1 [since deceased]. Despite his repeated request, there had been no initiative to get the sale deed executed in conformity to the terms of the said agreement to sale. Per contra, the plaintiff averred that the balance amount of Rs.2,36,250/- was with the plaintiff for payment. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 [since deceased] transferred the suit land in favour of his daughter, the defendant No.2 by the gift deed dated 17.02.2005. According to the defendant since the plaintiff failed to perform his part by making payment of the remainder of the consideration money, the earnest money as received by the defendant No.1 got forfeited in terms of the agreement. However, the defendants have clearly stated that they are ready to refund the earnest money as received by them, to the