The appeal granted specific performance of a contract, confirming readiness and willingness of the plaintiff meets legal standards.

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.6.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.112 - A / 2011 by learned Second District Judge, Jabalpur, whereby a suit for specific performance of contract dated 12.05.2000 filed by the appellant / plaintiff has been dismissed, present appeal under S.96 of CPC has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff.

3. The case of the appellant / plaintiff as projected in the plaint filed on 27.9.2011 is that appellant / plaintiff filed a suit for specifically performance of the contract / agreement dated 12.05.2000 in respect of the suit property situated at Mouza Laxmipur, Number Bandobast 643, Patwari Halka No. 25, Survey (Khasra) No. 5/10, Area 1.618 Hectare, Tehsil and District Jabalpur, inter alia contending that the respondent / defendant Jabalpur Agrawal Sabha is the absolute owner of the disputed suit land which was purchased from Vendor Sunil Kumar Yadav, Smt. Geeta Bai Yadav, Ku. Kiran Devi Yadav, Sanjay Kumar Yadav and Ku. Kamini Yadav by a registered instrument (Sale deed) dated 03.08.1987. Prior to the purchase of the suit land, the defendant / respondent had the knowledge about the order dated 20.03.1985 passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 by the competent authority whereby the suit land was exempted from the provisions of the said Act as the suit land is the agriculture land.

4. It is further asserted in the plaint that as the plaintiff was ready to purchase the suit land, therefore, the defendant / respondent passed a resolution in its meeting dated 11.05.2000 for selling the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and on 12.05.2000 the respondent / defendant entered into an agreement to sell the disputed property for a total valuable consideration of Rs.8,50,000/- with certain terms and conditions thereof. It is significant to mention here that the agreement was duly signed by the then President and Secretary of the defendant, plaintiff and two witnesses in the presence of each other. On the date of agreement, the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent / defendant towards advance by way of Pay Order dated 9.5.2000 bearing nos. 671233; 671234 and 671235 each of Rs.50,000/-. It was also agreed upon that balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.7,00,000/- shall be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of execution of the sale deed.

5. It is also averred in the plaint that the petition bearing W.P. No. 5212/2000 was filed as per the terms and conditions made in the agreement dated 12.5.2000 and by order dated 23.08.2011 the petition was decided by the High Court quashing the order of the competent authority under the Ceiling and Regulation Act as well as the order of the Additional Commissioner. Thus, the suit land stood exempted from the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 being not affected with the provisions of the said act.

6. According to the plaint averments, the appellant / plaintiff approached several times the respondent / defendant for getting the sale deed executed but the defendant all the times avoided with mala fide intention. On 30.08.2011 the appellant / plaintiff also contacted the defendant along with cheque of remaining sale consideration of suit land i.e. Rs. 7 Lacs payable to the defendant / respondent and a request was made to execute the sale deed, however the respondent / defendant had refused to accept it and it was apprised to the plaintiff that the respondent / defendant is interested to get some more consideration and is wil