The court clarified that readiness and willingness to perform in contract law do not negate wrongful conduct that may bar specific performance even when claims for advance payments are valid.

J U D G M E N T

These three appeals arise from the common judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos.101/1988 & 98/1990, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kasargod. A.S.No.425/1994 was filed by the defendant in O.S.No.101/1988. A.S.No.428/1994 was also filed by her against the decree passed in O.S.No.98/1990. A.S.No.655/1994 was filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.101/1988. O.S.No.101/1988 was filed by the plaintiff originally for specific performance. O.S.No.98/1990 was filed by the wife of plaintiff in O.S.101/1998 against the very same defendant for refund of money advanced by the plaintiff for purchase of five cents of property. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as vendor and vendee.

2. The common defendant in O.S.No.101/1988 and O.S.No.98/1990 was the owner of 60 cents of property. On 14.4.1987, she entered into two agreements one with the plaintiff in O.S.No.101/1988 and another with his wife, the plaintiff in O.S.No.98/1990. The vendor had agreed to convey 55 cents of property to the husband and 5 cents of property to the wife. On the date of execution of the agreements, she received an amount of Rs.5000/= from the husband. Subsequently, on 28.4.1987, the vendor received an amount of Rs.9,000/= from the husband, thus a total amount of Rs.14,000/= was received. The vendor received an amount of Rs.7000/= on the date of agreement, Rs.9000/= on 24.8.1987 and Rs.5000/= on 6.5.1987. The time fixed for the execution of Sale deeds was 30.7.1987. No sale deeds were executed prior to or before 31.7.1987. On 30.7.1987, the vendor went to the Sub Registrar's office and stood as an attestor to Ext.P2 document. On 31.7.1987, she issued two notices, one to the husband and another one to the wife, repudiating the agreements stating that the time was the essence of the contract. It was averred that after entering into an agreement with the proposed vendors, she had agreed to purchase property from one Youseff, and that sale deed could not be executed, because of the fault on the part of the proposed vendees, though she was ready and willing to perform her part. It was further averred that because of the default committed by the proposed vendees, she sustained damages. On 7.8.1987, vendees sent reply notices to the notices issued by the vendor. On 14.12.1987, the plaintiff in O.S.No.101/1988 issued a notice to the vendor demanding specific performance, to which she sent a reply notice contending that she was not liable to execute the document, and she had already repudiated the agreement for sale.

3. The husband filed O.S.No.101/1988, for specific performance. It was alleged that the appellant in A.S.No.425/1994 had agreed to sell the property to him for a total consideration of Rs.87,500/=, and received an amount of Rs.5000/= as advance on that date. It was further averred that on 28.4.1987, another sum of Rs.9000/= was also paid as sale consideration. The sale deed ought to have executed on or before 30.7.1987, after receiving the balance balance of consideration of Rs.73,500/=. It was averred that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing perform his part of the contract, but the defendant was not ready to perform her part. In spite of several requests, encumbrance certificate and title deeds were not given to the plaintiff. Though several requests were made to hand over the documents, she was asking for time. It was averred that after the time limit, defendant vendor purposefully stopped watering the Arecanut trees in the property causing a damage of Rs.25,000/-.

It was averred that the plaintiff was entitled to get that amount as damages. Subsequently, the suit was amended incorporating an alternate prayer for refund of the advance amount of Rs.14,000/= paid by way of advance.

4. The defendant contented that Rs.14,000/= received by her was by way of earnest money. It was contented that it was the plaintiff who made the breach of contract. He did not get the necessary sale deed prepared, he never made a