Continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract is a condition precedent for obtaining the relief of specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2003 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy (for short “trial court”) in O.S.No.161 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the trial court while dismissing the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale was dismissed, ordered for refund of Rs.4,00,000/- paid by the appellant-plaintiff with interest thereon, the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel of appellant is that the trial Court erred in holding that the appellant failed to perform his part of contract and the time is the of essence of contract. He also stated that the letters written by the respondents on 21.7.2000 extending period of payment till 15.03.2000 were not filed before the court. In fact he never received those letters but they were brought into existence to suit stand of the respondents. The trial court believed the story of the respondents and held that the appellant is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In fact the payment of balance amount was subject to measurement of the land by the respondents. He need not show physically about cash balance as on that date. He also stated that in a suit for specific performance granting relief of specific performance is a rule and refusal is an exception, but the trial court without appreciating the facts and without assigning any reasons properly dismissed the suit and thus requested to allow the appeal by setting the impugned judgment.

3. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record and also the citations filed by both the Counsel.

For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter be referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed before the trial court.

4. The plaintiff stated that the defendants are the absolute owners and possessors of the open land bearing plot No.C/5, in Survey No.120, admeasuring 2632 Square Yards situated in Medipalli village, Ghatkesar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. Out of the same the defendants sold 450 Square Yards to others and remaining land was offered to sell to the prospective purchasers. The plaintiff having come to know of the same expressed his willingness to purchase the land subject to measurement. The defendants also accepted to sell the same @ 400/- per Square Yard. Accordingly, an agreement of purchase was also entered on 23.09.1999. The plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration on the same day and paid further amount of Rs.3,00,000/-on 4.1.2000. The defendants agreed to get the land measured and to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. In spite of his several efforts the defendants failed to do so. On 04.05.2000 the General Power of Attorney (G.P.A) holder of the defendant No.1 came to Hyderabad and on his assurance he got prepared the draft sale deed and also ready with the balance sale consideration, but the General Power of Attorney holder, under the pretext of clarifying the boundaries, as they already sold some part of the land, went away without clarifying the same and he came to know that at present the available land is only 2580 Sq.Yards. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 18.5.2000. The defendants gave reply notice on 29.05.2000 with false allegations and also returned Rs.4 Lakhs by way of demand drafts. The plaintiff gave reply on 08.06.2000 and returned the demand drafts to the defendants and also expressed his ready and willingness to pay the balance amount. The General Power of Attorney sent a letter on 25.06.2000 to the plaintiff’s counsel and returned the demand drafts. Again the plaintiff issued reply notice on 30.06.2000 and returned the demand drafts of Rs.2 Lakhs each. As the defendants failed to register the lands in his favour and as the plaintiff is ready with the balance sale consideration on 4.5.2000, he filed the suit for specific performance of contract. He also stated that the defendants filed suit for