In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness by demonstrating both their presence at the appropriate registration office on the target date and the proven availability of the balance sale consideration, as the relief is discretionary and requires strict adherence to contractual obligations.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the District Courts, whereby suit filed by the appellant for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 08.01.2004, has been partly decreed by both the District Courts for recovery of Rs.1,08,900/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum thereupon.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that defendants are the owners in possession of the suit property. Vide Agreement to Sell dated 08.01.2004, defendants No.1 and 2 had agreed to sell the plot in question to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,36,468/-. The amount of Rs.90,000/- paid in cash was received by defendants No.1 and 2 by way of earnest money. Target date for execution of Sale Deed was set for 03.03.2004. It is submitted that the appellant had duly proved on record the said Agreement to Sell. It is submitted that defendant had obtained permission from HUDA for transfer of plot in the name of defendants, in favour of nominee of the plaintiff, namely, Atul Jain vide Permission Letter dated 03.02.2004 Ex.PW1/3. Moreover, appellant had also proved his presence before the HUDA office and before the learned Executive Magistrate/Sub Registrar Gurgaon by way of his Affidavits dated 27.02.2004 and 03.03.2004. However, defendants No.1 and 2 had become dishonest and had not performed their part of contract. Plaintiff had served legal notice dated 30.08.2005 upon the defendants but to no avail. It is contended that in view of above said facts, no ground whatsoever is made out as to why suit of the plaintiff was not decreed for specific performance.

It is accordingly prayed that present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the ld. District Courts be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and submits that defendants had only signed the format for transfer/permission from HUDA authorizing the plaintiff to obtain the said permission either in his name or in the name of his nominee. The said permission from HUDA was obtained in the name of Sh. Atul Jain R/o DLF, Phase-III, Gurgaon. After the said permission was accorded, Sh. Atul Jain, nominee of the plaintiff, it was the plaintiff who failed to get the sale deed registered. Plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. It is submitted that therefore, the plaintiff now wants to grab the plot in dispute after losing his rights as the market value of the plot in question has gone up very sharply and it is this lust of money on the part of the plaintiff that this frivolous suit has been filed. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in a great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant.

A perusal of record of the case shows that defendants in their written statement have admitted the Agreement to Sell dated 08.01.2004 Ex.PW1/2. It is also admitted that plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the defendants No.1 and 2 at the time of execution of Agreement dated 08.01.2004. As such, there can be no dispute with regard to the said aspect of the matter.

However, in order to grant discretionary relief of specific performance of contract, it is also incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 27.02.2004 and 03.03.2004, plaintiff and his nominee went to the HUDA office, Gurgaon for execution of Sale Deed. However, despite repeated Court queries, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out the Affidavit of Attendance of marking the presence of the plaintiff and his nominee in the HUDA office either on 27.02.2004 or 03.03.2004. Plaintiff is also unable to explain as to wh