The amendment to the Specific Relief Act in 2018 makes specific performance non-discretionary; proven readiness leads to enforceable agreements.

JUDGMENT :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Appellant is Plaintiff in O.S.No. 135 of 2005 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, R.R District at L.B. Nagar. The parties to this appeal are being referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

1.1. Plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 0-10 guntas in Survey No. 186/A, Ac. 0-08 guntas in Survey No. 187/A, Ac.0-06 guntas in Survey No. 190/A, Ac. 0-07 guntas in Survey No. 191/A, Ac.0-09 guntas in Survey No. 192/A situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District (referred to as ‘Suit Schedule Property’).

1.2. It is stated, defendant is owner of the suit schedule property who approached Plaintiff offering to sell the property; total sale consideration agreed between the parties is Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) and the said agreement was reduced into writing vide unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 10.07.2000. On the date of Agreement, Plaintiff paid Rs. 10,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/-. Though repeated requests were made by Plaintiff with Defendant for execution of registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-, defendant refused to execute sale deed by giving one reason or other. Plaintiff waited for considerable time and issued legal notice on 06.06.2005 and prior to issuance of legal notice, a demand was made by Plaintiff on 20.07.2004. Having no other alternative, Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance based on Agreement of Sale dated 10.07.2000 marked as Ex. A-1.

2. Defendant filed written statement in the suit denying entering into Agreement of Sale with Plaintiff, so also whole of the sale transaction including receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- The Agreement of Sale relied on by Plaintiff is created and brought into existence only to knock away the Suit Schedule Property and that there is no privity of contract between Plaintiff and Defendant thereby execution of registered sale deed does not arise. It is also stated, in view of rise in the market value of lands in Kokapet, Narsingi Regions, Plaintiff created the Agreement of Sale and based on the said document, suit for specific performance was filed. The demand made by Plaintiff on 20.07.2004 was also denied by defendant who contends that there is no cause of action for filing suit for specific performance.

2.1. Defendant denied issuance of legal notice dated 06.06.2005 and further contended that Suit Schedule Property is ancestral property and Defendant alone cannot enter into a contract of sale and other co-parceners have title/share/interest in the schedule property. It is the specific case of defendant that Plaintiff is resident of Narsingi Village and Defendant is resident of Kokapet Village which is near to Narsingi and due to the said acquaintance, Defendant in July 2000, obtained Rs.2,00,000/- towards hand loan and during the said loan transaction, Plaintiff obtained blank signatures on stamp papers towards security purpose. Though Defendant had repaid the said loan amount in 2001 itself, Plaintiff did not return the blank signed papers giving the reason that the same were misplaced and as and when traced, the same would be returned. Plaintiff using the said stamp papers, had created the Agreement of Sale, witnesses to the Agreement of Sale are none other than the henchmen of Plaintiff and all of them have created the Agreement Of Sale and filed the suit.

3. Based on the pleadings, the trial Judge framed the following issues:

1) Whether the suit agreement came into existence under the circumstances mentioned by the Def