The court emphasized the need for sound reasoning in declining specific performance and identified readiness to perform and bona fide purchaser status as critical issues.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, with an alternate relief for return of the advance sale consideration, was decreed for the alternative relief. Seeking the main relief, the plaintiff is in appeal.

2. Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 22.02.2012 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. As per Ext.A1, the defendant agreed to convey to the plaintiff the plaint schedule property having an extent of 31.495 cents. The sale consideration payable was ₹ 4,65,000/- per cent, for the extent found available on measurement. On the date of Ext.A1 an amount of ₹ 25 lakhs was paid towards advance sale consideration. The period fixed for performance was up to 22.04.2012. The plaintiff alleges that, though he was ready and willing to perform the agreement, the R.F.A. No.12 of 2015 defendant willfully evaded performance. Ext.A2 is the notice dated 14.12.2012 issued by the plaintiff, calling upon the defendant to perform the agreement. Alleging failure on the part of the defendant to perform the agreement, the suit is filed seeking specific performance of the agreement, with an alternative relief for return of the advance sale consideration.

3. The defendant remained ex parte. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1.

4. The trial court after noticing that the defendant is ex parte and that the plaint claim remains proved, straight away proceeded to grant a decree for refund of the advance sale consideration. The judgment reads thus :-

“JUDGMENT Suit for specific performance with an alternate relief for return of advance amount.

2. Defendant declared ex-parte. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. In the absence of contra evidence, the suit claim stands proved.

In the result, a) Suit is decreed.

b) The relief of specific performance is declined and alternate relief is granted and plaintiff is allowed to realise an amount of ₹28,75,000/- [Rupees Twenty eight lakhs and seventy five thousand only) together with 9% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6%

per annum till realisation.

c) Plaintiff is entitled to get the costs of the suit as well.”

R.F.A. No.12 of 2015 Evidently, there is no consideration of the plaintiff's evidence and no reason has been assigned as to why the relief for specific performance was declined. The judgment is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

5. Pending the appeal, the additional second respondent got himself impleaded. He claimed to be a subsequent bona fide purchaser of the property for value and without notice of Ext.A1 agreement. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that even the second respondent had alienated the property to a third party.

6. The suit being one for specific performance of an agreement for sale, with an alternative relief for return of advance sale consideration which could be charged upon the property, apart from the issues of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the agreement, the exercise of discretion, the question as to whether the second respondent was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice etc., are also relevant matters for consideration in the suit.

7. We have already found that the impugned decree is liable to be interfered with. It is only appropriate that the suit be R.F.A. No.12 of 2015 remanded back to the trial court for disposal denovo and in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned decree and judgment are set aside. The suit will stand remanded back to the trial court for disposal denovo. The entire court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded to the appellant.

Parties to appear before the trial court on 16.02.2026.