IMPORTANT POINTS
1. There can be no doubt that a suit for specific performance lies to enforce even an oral agreement. However, in such a situation, it is essential that the plaintiff should establish the necessary ingredients for seeking the equitable relief of specific performance.
2. Very rarely would a decree for specific performance be granted on the basis of an agreement supported solely by oral evidence.
3. In terms of this requirement, a suit notice must precede the institution of the suit, wherein the plaintiff would set forth his averments as to his performance or his readiness or willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract.
4. Section 20(1) of the Act of 1963 confers discretionary jurisdiction upon the Court to decree specific performance and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so.

Sanjay Kumar, J.—By judgment and decree dated 28.11.2001, the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissed O.S.No.547 of 1996 on his file. Aggrieved thereby, Suresh Chukkapalli, the plaintiff therein, is in appeal.

O.S.No.547 of 1996 was instituted seeking specific performance of an oral development agreement entered into by and between the plaintiff and Dr.Ali Abbas Hussain, a medical practitioner, the defendant, in relation to the suit schedule property owned by the defendant and for delivery of vacant physical possession thereof to the plaintiff for development in accordance with the stipulations agreed upon between them. He also sought a direction to the defendant to execute and register a power of attorney in his favour, inter alia, authorising him to deal with 40% of the built up area after such development.

The property bearing Municipal No.6-3-883/A&B, admeasuring 2560 square yards, situated at Somajiguda junction, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, is the suit schedule property.

2. The plaint averments read as under:—

The plaintiff is engaged in the business of acquisition, development and sale of immovable property, comprising flats, commercial and other units. He is a Director of Front Line Constructions Limited which is engaged in the business of civil construction and development by erecting multi-storeyed buildings and selling them either as a whole or in units. The modus operandi of the plaintiff and the company is to acquire immovable properties worthy of development from their owners with the stipulation that the same would be developed by investing their own funds and in consideration of the owners entrusting their properties, certain percentage of the constructed area would be given to them and the balance area would be retained/owned by the plaintiff or the company, as the case may be.

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant approached him through one Mohd. Masiuddin Farooqui (P.W.5) representing that he owned the suit schedule property and that he desired the old building standing thereon should be demolished so that a building with modern taste, in line with the present market demand, should be constructed. The plaintiff visited the suit schedule property thereupon and having evaluated its commercial potential, he proposed that it was best suited for a commercial building and that as the area fell in a residential zone, he informed the defendant that change of land use would have to be obtained from the Government. He also pointed out to the defendant that a considerable part of the land would be affected in road-widening and relaxation in respect of statutory setbacks would have to be obtained to avail the total floor space index. The defendant agreed to his suggestions and thereafter, the parties concluded the contract. The terms and conditions of the development of the suit schedule property deliberated upon and concluded between the parties, set out in para 5, read as under:—

(i) The Plaintiff shall draw up petitions, plans and other documents at his own cost and expense , necessary for seeking Change of Land use as also for relaxation of Mandatory Open Spaces and coverage and shall follow up the matter with various Statutory Authorities and the Government.

(ii) That upon receipt of the change of land and also the relaxations of open Spaces, the paties shall apply to the Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX C of Income tax Act, 1961 and obtain NO Objection as laid down under the said Act. Simultaneously therewith, the Plaintiff shall get the Municipal Plans drawn and submit the same for approval by paying requisite fees.

(iii) The Defendant shall sign all such petitions and plans as may be required by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff shall pay for and bear all charges, fees payable under any Regulation to the Government or otherwise without seeking any re imbursement thereof from the Defendant.

(iv) The Defendant shall within a period of 30 days from the date of receip