Continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract is essential for specific performance; failure to pay within stipulated time bars the claim.

JUDGMENT :

P.SREE SUDHA, J.

This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2014 in O.S.No.4 of 2003 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The suit vide O.S.No.4 of 2003 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff against respondents/defendants for Specific Performance of Agreement of sale and for Perpetual Injunction. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, plaintiff in the suit preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as “plaintiff” and “defendants” as arrayed in the trial Court.

5. P.W.1 was examined on behalf of plaintiff and D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of defendants. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of plaintiff and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defendants.

6. The brief facts of the case are that defendant Nos.1 to 4 and father of defendant No.4 by name M.A.Sattar were the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 in Sy.Nos.572, 573 and 74 of Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, R.R District bounded on North: 100’ Wide road, South: 40’ Wide road, East: Nala and West: Existing Huda Layout (hereinafter referred as ‘suit schedule property’). Plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale dated 25.04.1996 with defendant Nos.1 to 3 and father of defendant No.4 with consideration of Rs.3.9 lakhs per acre totaling to Rs.19.50 lakhs. On the date of agreement of sale, plaintiff paid Rs.5 lakhs and agreed to pay the balance amount in three installments. The neighbor of the suit schedule property, Mr.G.Mohan instituted a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.296 of 1996 against defendant No.1 and plaintiff. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and father of defendant No.4 also instituted a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.551 of 1996. The litigation went up to September, 1999. Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.14.6 lakhs. During the pendency of litigation, defendants have been postponing the registration by assuring the plaintiff to wait for verdict of the litigation, and the time for performing the contract was mutually extended from time to time. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and M.A.Sattar had been dodging the matter under one pretext or the other, even after the litigation is completed. In the meanwhile, M.A.Sattar, who was vendor No.4 in the agreement died and inspite of his best efforts, plaintiff could not find his legal representatives.

7. Plaintiff filed copy of the plaint and written statement in O.S.No.296 of 1996 and also filed copy of the plaint in O.S.No.551 of 1996. Common judgment was passed in O.S.Nos.296 and 551 of 1996 on 21.09.1999. Injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff and suit for declaration was dismissed and the said judgment was not challenged and it attained finality. As there was road widening from Hyderabad to Warangal, the suit schedule property was acquired by Government for road widening. In September, 2002, many people contacted plaintiff and expressed their intention to purchase the suit schedule property from defendants, as such plaintiff gave paper publication on 24.09.2002 and also issued legal notice dated 01.10.2002. In a reply dated 13.10.2002, defendants refused to perform their part of contract. Plaintiff left with no other option and thus he approached the Court and filed suit for specific performance of contract. He further stated that from the date of refusal i.e., from 13.10.2002, he filed the suit within limitation and thus requested the Court to direct the defendants to register sale deed and he sought for alternative relief of refund of the amount with intere