Plaintiff failed to establish valid contract and continuous readiness for specific performance under Specific Relief Act.

1. The present appeal under S.96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 7 - A / 2005 dated 24-10-2007 by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon.

2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the First Appeal is that the Appellant - Plaintiff Diwakar Mullick had filed a suit for specific performance seeking enforcement of an oral agreement for sale in pursuance of which a money receipt dated 30-3-2005 was issued in part payment and also sought relief of permanent injunction. The dispute pertains to 1500 Sq. ft. land situating in Sheet No. 48, Plot No.52 in Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter referred as suit property).

3. The Appellant - Plaintiff admittedly is a tenant of the Defendants. The suit property devolved upon Defendant No. 2, who is an old bedridden widow, by a testamentary disposition executed in her favour by her late husband. Defendant No. 1 is the physically challenged daughter of Defendant No. 2.

4. According to the plaintiff he had made an offer / proposal on 30-3-2005 to the Defendants for purchasing the suit property which was acceptable to the defendants and an oral agreement was arrived at between the plaintiff and defendants for the sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/-. On the basis of the oral agreement arrived at between the parties on 30-3-2005 as an acceptance to the agreement the plaintiff gave an amount of Rs. 11,000/- towards advance and it was agreed that the balance of Rs. 8.89 Lakh shall be paid in the Office of the Dy. Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed. The defendants issued a money receipt (Exhibit P / 2) acknowledging receipt of Rs. 11000/- towards advance on 30-3-2005 itself. As per the plaintiff the defendants had to get the sale deed executed within a period of four months from 30-3-2005 i.e. by 30-7-2005.

5. Since the defendants did not execute the sale deed and in between the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are in the process of negotiating a sale with some third party, the plaintiff immediately served the defendants with a legal notice asking the defendants to appear before the Registrar (Stamp) for execution of the sale deed on 18-7-2005 and on the said date he had kept a banker cheque prepared for an amount of Rs. 8.89 lakhs and waited at the office of the Dy. Registrar (Stamp) for the whole day but the defendants did not turn up leading to the filing of the Civil Suit seeking relief of specific performance and permanent injunction.

6. The defendants entered appearance before the trial Court and submitted a detailed reply categorically denying all the averments and contentions made by the plaintiff in his pleading. They had also submitted that basis of the suit i.e. Exhibit P / 2 was a forged, fabricated and suspicious document praying for dismissal of the suit.

7. After the evidence was recorded, the trial Court vide judgment impugned dated 24-10-2007 dismissed the plaintiff' s suit holding it to be devoid of merit under the provisions of Specific Performance leading to filing of this First Appeal.

8. According to the plaintiff, Exhibit P / 2 the receipt dated 30-3-2005, is not disputed by the Defendants. Rather the defendants have admitted the same and also accepted receipt of Rs.11,000/- towards advance against the suit property. The only aspect that the trial Court ought to have considered was whether the payment of Rs. 11,000/- was towards advance of earnest money as token of the acc