In suits for specific performance, plaintiffs must establish readiness, willingness, and privity of contract; lack of credible evidence leads to dismissal of claims for equitable relief.

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

These appeals arise from the decree in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The suit was decreed by the trial court. RFA 428/2019 is filed by the 4thdefendant, RFA 219/2025 is filed by the third defendant, and RFA 220 of 2025 is filed by defendants 1 and 2.

2. The plaintiffs are brothers. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The third defendant is the brother of the first defendant. The fourth defendant is the alienee of the plaint schedule properties.

3. On 27.04.2007, the first defendant, on his behalf and on behalf of defendants 2 and 3, entered into Ext.A1 agreement for sale with the first plaintiff. Under Ext.A1, the plaint schedule properties, four in number, were agreed to be conveyed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the first plaintiff. The period fixed was two months. The total consideration fixed was ₹ 47.5 lakhs. On the date of Ext.A1 an amount of ₹ 4 lakhs was paid towards advance sale consideration. Thereafter, on 07.05.2007, a further amount of ₹ 2.5 lakhs was paid towards sale consideration. Such payment is undisputed and is evidenced by Ext.A2 receipt. According to the plaintiffs, subsequently, an amount of ₹ 1.5 lakhs was also paid towards the sale consideration.

4. As per the plaint averments the circumstance leading to execution of Ext.A1 agreement is as follows:-

5. Plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 belong to the first defendant. Plaint schedule item No.3 belongs to defendants 1 and 2. The wife of the second plaintiff viz. Reeja is a co-sharer over item 3. Plaint schedule item No.4 belongs to defendants 1 and 3. There were suits pending between the second plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, before the Munsiff's Court, Koothuparmba.

6. O.S. No.363/2003 was filed by the first defendant as plaintiff, against the second plaintiff herein and his wife-Reeja as defendants, for prohibitory injunction against trespass into the plaint schedule item No.3. OS 163/2004 was instituted by the said Reeja, against defendants 1 and 2 for fixation of boundary which again related to plaint schedule item No.3. In the said suit, when the Advocate Commissioner visited the properties, an agreement was entered into between the parties whereby defendants 1 to 3 agreed to convey the properties to the second plaintiff. However, since the second plaintiff was a party to the litigations, Ext.A1 agreement was executed with the first plaintiff. The real purchaser is the second plaintiff. Ext.A1 agreement is entered into for the second plaintiff and the entire funds for the transaction is provided by the second plaintiff.

7. The understanding was that, the Commissioner will measure out the property and thereafter the sale deed could be executed. Within the period fixed under Ext.A1, on 20.06.2007, the first plaintiff issued Ext.A11 notice demanding performance of the agreement. Later, the Commissioner visited the property. On 18.10.2009 the 4^th defendant filed an impleading application in the said suits claiming that he had purchased the plaint schedule properties under Exts.A8 and A9 Sale Deeds dated 06.11.2008. The 4^th defendant alleges that he is a bonafide purchaser without notice of Ext.A1 agreement. It is also alleged that defendants 1 and 2 are partners in a business and that the proposed sale was for their business purposes. Alleging failure on the part of the defendants to perform the agreement, the suit was filed for specific performance. There is an alternate prayer for refund of advance sale consideration and for damag