A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove both a valid agreement and continuous willingness to perform; failure to provide credible evidence results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

(K. SUJANA, J.)

Challenging the judgment dated 24.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.259 of 2008 by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, the present appeal suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.05.2007. As per the plaintiff, defendant No.1, M. Chenna Kotaiah, was the absolute owner of the suit property located at Thattianaram Village, Ranga Reddy District, and entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which Rs.14,00,000/- was allegedly paid as advance. The plaintiff claimed that despite readiness and willingness to pay the balance, the defendant failed to complete the sale and instead executed a subsequent sale agreement-cum-GPA on 17.01.2008 in favor of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No.1 remained ex parte. Defendant Nos.2 and 3, however, denied the claims of the plaintiff before the trial Court and asserted that the defendant No.1 agreed to sell the property to them for Rs.18,70,000/-. They entered into an agreement on 06.12.2007 and paid Rs.3,00,000/- initially, later clearing the outstanding housing loan of Rs.10,76,320/- to redeem the mortgage on the property. A registered agreement of sale- cum-GPA was executed in their favor (Ex.B1), and they claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value. They also contended that defendant No.1 had a habit of signing blank papers and cheques, casting doubt on the plaintiff’s agreement.

3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. DWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

4. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 24.01.2015, dismissed the suit observing that there are discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence in the plaintiff’s version, particularly regarding the payment of Rs.14,00,000/- allegedly made in cash without documentation. The supporting witness (PW2) gave inconsistent testimony, weakening the case of the plaintiff. In contrast, defendant Nos.2 and 3 provided credible documentary evidence (Exs.B1 to B15), proving payment and possession. Due to the non-appearance of defendant No.1 and the doubtful circumstances around the agreement of the plaintiff, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the validity of the agreement. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal suit is filed.

5. Heard Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are incorrect and against the evidence and law and that the trial Court wrongly rejected the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance based on assumptions instead of properly considering the documents and witness testimonies. The trial Court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff only because she is from a different district and has no business in Hyderabad. He further submitted that there is nothing unusual about someone wanting to buy property in the capital city and that the trial Court ignored that defendant Nos.2 and 3 claimed owner