The plaintiff must prove the existence of a valid contract and continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract for specific performance to be granted.

JUDGMENT

With the consent of parties, the matter was heard finally.

This first appeal has been preferred under Section 96 of the CPC on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2020 passed in Civil Suit No.66-A/2014 by learned 27th Additional District Judge, Indore whereby the leaned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for Specific Performance of Contract.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the present appeal has been preferred at the instance of the original plaintiff, while respondents are the original defendants in the plaint. That, it is an admitted fact that the respondent's no. 1- Chain Singh, 3- Madhu Singh, No. 4 - Madan Singh, No. 5- Gulab Singh and No. 6 Mohan Singhare brothers and respondents Rajendra Singh and Trilok Singh are son of respondent no.1. It is also an admitted fact that the suit property is agricultural land situated at gram Khajrana, tehsil Indore bearing khasra no. 443/1, ad-measuring rakba 0.668 hectare at patwari halka no.16, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’).

3. As per the plaint, the appellant has filed a suit stating that the respondents, in the year 1995 have proposed to sale the land in question to the appellant. The appellant after accepting the proposal by an oral deal agreed to purchase the said land for total sale consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/-. In lieu of this, the respondents have received Rs.10,000/- in the year, 1995, Rs.5,000/- in year 1999, Rs.10,000/- thereafter, thus, total Rs.25,000/-. Subsequently, as per the appellant, in the year 1999 two installments of Rs.50,000/- each was also paid to the respondents. The appellant, as part payment, has paid Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondents. In confirmation and continuation of the oral deal, it was decided for execution of a written agreement. The appellant and the respondents have entered into a written agreement dated 30/08/2000 (Exhibit-P/2). This agreement shown that an oral deal had been taken place and now the written agreement is being executed. Further, it is also clarified that the possession has already handed over to the appellant and part payment has been received by respondent. Since then, the appellant is in continuous physical possession of the suit land. It has been further contended in the plaint that the appellant has developed the land in question and has dug a borewell, constructed residential house and is doing farming on the said land. Appellant and his brother are living with the family on the said land. The appellant after 30/08/2000 has time and again requested the respondents for execution of the sale deed but the respondents have avoided his request. In light of the agreement dated 30/08/2000 the appellant has sent a legal notice dated 04/09/2002 (Exhibit-P/4) stating therein that the appellant is ready and willing to execute the sale deed.

4. Again on 29/08/2003 another notice was sent whereby, the respondents were asked to appear before the Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed after taking the remaining amount of sale consideration. The respondents have failed to turn down. Thus, the suit was filed on the basis of written agreement dated 30/08/2000. That, it has been further mentioned in the plaint that the appellant has earlier approached the trial court for grant of permanent injunction against the respondents and the said proceedings were dismissed in year 2004 due to want of prosecution, As per the plaint, as the prices of the land have been raised therefore, due to malafide intentions, the respondents are not ready and agreeable to execute the sale deed. The appellant prays to allow the suit for specific performance and execute the sale deed in his favour before learned trial court. In reply, the respondents have filed their written statements denying the averments of the plaint. An objection regarding the court fees, mis-joinder of parties and the possession of the suit land was also raised. The oral agreement as