The substantial pre-payment of sale consideration by the plaintiff establishes readiness and willingness for specific performance, reinforcing the enforceability of the sale agreement despite defendant claims.

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri Peddapally Sai Kiran, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3 and Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the learned Judge’), dated 19.09.2019 in O.S.No.55 of 2011, whereby, the suit filed for directing the appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5 to execute registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff in respect of the property i.e. Plots bearing Nos.165 and 166 admeasuring an area of 366 sq.yds. in Sy.Nos.249 and 250 situated at Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District (for short ‘the suit schedule property’ has been decreed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.55 of 2011.

Facts of the case:

4. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of specific performance of Agreement of sale dated 26.07.2008/Ex.A1 and to declare the sale deeds i.e. document bearing No.3398 of 2009, dated 23.04.2009/Ex.A7 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and document bearing No.9971 of 2009, dated 05.11.2009/Ex.A8 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3, as null and void.

5. Initially the suit was filed against defendant Nos.1 to 3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.4 to 6.

6. Defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased it from defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed vide document No.10083 of 2008, dated 17.07.2008/Ex.A2. Defendant No.1 due to financial needs offered to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-. Consequently, defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to discharge loan. On the basis of the agreement reached between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, a Sale Agreement/Ex.A1 was executed on 26.07.2008 on stamp papers on payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to defendant No.1 in the presence of witnesses. In the said Agreement, it was agreed that the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed. The plaintiff demanded execution of registered sale deed but defendant No.1 postponed on one pretext or the other. While things stood thus, defendant No.1 got issued a legal notice dated 13.04.2010/Ex.A3 alleging that he was in need of money and took Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff by deposit of title deeds. It is further alleged that at that time, defendant No.1’s signatures were obtained on cheques and promissory note by the plaintiff. On receipt of the legal notice, the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 and questioned about the notice. When there was no reply, the plaintiff got issued a reply notice dated 19.07.2010/Ex.A4, but, defendant No.1 did not give any reply to the reply notice of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case is that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but, defendant No.1 is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. When the plaintiff got issued reply notice, defendant No.1 informed the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was sold in favour of defendant No.2. Upon enquiry, the plaintiff learned that defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 23.04.2009 vide document No.3398 of 2009/Ex.A7 and that defendant No.2 in turn executed