In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the valid execution of the sale agreement and must establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations; failure to prove these elements, or to reconcile discrepancies in property descriptions, precludes the grant of relief.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.

2. Plaintiffs second appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.06.1986 in respect of following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as suit agreement) which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.122/2013:

“Land comprised in Sy.No.160/1 measuring East to West 95 and North to South 20 feet situated at kasaba Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk and bounded by:

East: Thimmarayappa’s plaining machine

West: Land now sold to third person

North: Defendants house

South: Plaintiffs saw mill and house”

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.353/1994 seeking specific enforcement of agreement to sell dated 09.04.1986 by contending that defendant No.1 - Gangadharaiah is the absolute owner of the suit property and he executed an agreement to sell wherein valuable consideration for the property was fixed at Rs.1,300/- and Gangadharaiah had received Rs.700/- as advance amount and put the plaintiff into the possession of the property and balance sum of Rs.600/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration.

3.2. Since there was an embargo for sale of the property on account of the fact that Prevention of Fragmentation Act was in force, execution of the sale deed was postponed and plaintiff had agreed to convey the land soon after the embargo is lifted by the Government.

3.3. It is further contended by the plaintiff that after the statutory embargo was lifted, plaintiff demanded defendants several times to execute the sale deed.

4. It is also contended that defendants received a sum of Rs.550/- for his personal necessity and on 18.02.1994, he received another sum of Rs.200/- towards municipality and layout charges and agreed to execute the sale deed on 20.07.1994 but despite receipt of those amount, defendants went on postponing of execution of the sale deed which necessitated the plaintiff to approach the Court with a prayer to pass a decree specifically enforcing agreement to sell dated 09.04.1986.

5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared before the Court and filed written statement contending that he is the absolute owner of the suit property but denied the fact that he has executed suit agreement.

6. He has further contended that plaintiff is the owner of the saw mill and he is rich and influential person and taking advantage the inability and power of the defendants and in order to knock off the property, suit agreement is concocted.

7. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised following issues and additional issue:

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant has agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him for Rs. 1300/- on 9.3.1986 and received the part of the consideration amount of Rs.700/- by executing the agreement deed?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he has paid Rs.200/- on 18.2.1994 to defendant towards sale consideration and defendant as assured to execute the registered sale deed after getting order under Prevention of Fragmentation Act and postponed the execution of the sale deed?

3. Whether the plaintiff is ever ready and willing to perform of his part of the contract?

4. Whether the defendant proves that, the plaintiff in order to knock of the valuable suit schedule property of the defendant has created the docume