The enforceability of a sale agreement does not depend solely on the vendor's title at execution; the purchaser's readiness to perform is critical.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 17 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order II Rule 2 - Appellant contesting specific performance of contract, claiming defendant lacked title - Courts held that failure to show readiness to perform was crucial but plaintiff had evidence of payment and legal notice - Judicial discretion balanced with legislative provisions regarding agreements. (Paras 17, 30, 32)

(B) Maintenance of Action - The plaintiff's right to file a subsequent suit where cause of actions differ is established and Order II Rule 2 does not bar separate claims for specific performance from previous injunction suits. (Paras 1, 32, 39)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a sale agreement for property, having paid substantial advance consideration. The defendant contested based on alleged lack of title and readiness.

Findings of Court:
The original and appellate courts found in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to execute the sale deed and confirming the agreements'.

Issues: Main issues included the defendant's title at the time of the agreement, the plaintiff's readiness to perform, and the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The registered agreement binds, regardless of title at execution, while the plaintiff demonstrated readiness to perform through evidence of payment and communication.

Result: Appeal dismissed; judgments of lower courts confirmed.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2013 passed in R.A.No.347/2011 by the learned III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysore and the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2011 passed in O.S. No.784/2006 by the Learned Principal Judge, Small Causes & Senior Civil Judge, Mysore.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The Page No.2 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 22.08.2025 appellant was the defendant No.1, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and respondent No.2 was defendant No.2.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.2 allotted the suit site in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is the owner in possession of the suit site and he agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- and the sale agreement was executed on 10.10.2005. The plaintiff paid a amount of Rs.5,50,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount, and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration amount would be paid within two months from the date of execution of the sale agreement i.e., at the time of registratioin of sale deed and to conclude the sale proceedings. The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff and requested to pay Rs.1,00,000/- out of the balance sale consideration amount. The plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- out of the balance sale consideration amount to defendant No.1. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to execute a registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.50,000/-. Despite the request made by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 did not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration amount.

(ii) The plaintiff, to demonstrate that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of a contract got issued a legal notice on 22.06.2006, calling upon defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute the registered sale deed. The Defendant No.1 though replied to the legal notice however, did not perform his part of a contract. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

(iii) Defendant No.1 filed a Written Statement admitting the execution of a sale agreement and receipt of Rs.5,50,000/- as an adverse sale consideration amount. It is contended that the plaintiff did not intend to perform his part of a contract. It is also contend that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.349/2006 against defendant No.1 for the relief of a permanent injunction, on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore. The present suit is not in compliance with Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the defendant proves that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Order

2 Rule 2 of CPC as pleaded?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as pleaded?

3. Whether the defendant proves that the period for extension of contract as fixed in the agreement was over and as such he is not bind to the said agreement dated 10.10.2005?

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief as claimed?

5. For what decree or order?

5. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W-1, examined one witness as P.W-2, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to Exs.P10. In rebuttal, the defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1, and marked 3 documents as Exs.D1 to Exs.D3. The defendant No.2 did not choose to lead any evidence. The Trial Court, after recording evidence, hearing both sides, and on assessing the verbal, and documentary evidence, answer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22754

The enforceability of a sale agreement does not depend solely on the vendor's title at execution; the purchaser's readiness to perform is critical.

Cases Referred (1)