Specific performance requires clear evidence of ownership and readiness to perform contractual obligations; absence leads to refund only.

Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. By way of this First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), the appellant / plaintiff has called in question the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.02.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Dantewada, District South Baster, Dantewada, C.G. in Civil Suit No.19-A/2015, whereby the suit for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed and he was held entitled for refund of only Rs.1,50,000/-. During pendency of this appeal, defendant No.1 Subal Dey died on 05.10.2022 and thereafter vide order dated 27.03.2023, his legal heirs were permitted to be brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the trial Court.

2. Case of the plaintiff is that he entered into an agreement with deceased/defendant No.1 for purchase of 1.07 acre of land situated at village Pawaras, district Sukma bearing Khasra No.1272, area 1.12 acre (hereinafter referred to 'suit land'), which was possessed and owned by defendant No.1, for a sale consideration of Rs.19 lakhs on 04.09.2014 vide Ex.P-1 and out of total sale consideration, a sum of Rs.1 lakh has been paid by the plaintiff as earnest money to deceased / defendant No.1. Prior to this agreement, on 09.08.2014, an agreement with respect to sale of the suit land was also executed between the parties vide Ex.P-2 and a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to deceased/defendant No.1. According to both the agreements, it was agreed that the deceased/defendant No.1 shall execute a sale-deed by 15.03.2015, but even after several requests made by the plaintiff, deceased/defendant No.1 avoided execution of sale-deed on one pretext or the other. Hence, on 12.03.2015, a registered notice was sent by the plaintiff to him (deceased / defendant No.1) vide Ex.P-5 which was returned with a tip “door locked” and “refused to accept”. According to the plaintiff, he also got a notice published in a daily newspaper, but even thereafter deceased/defendant No.1 did not come forward to execute sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, whereas the plaintiff has always been ready and wiling to perform his part of contractual obligation by paying the remaining amount of Rs.16.5 lakh to defendant No.1. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract with a direction to pass a decree of specific performance of contract in his favour and grant a possession of the suit land to him or in the alternative, he prayed that a sum of Rs.2.5 lakh paid as an advance to defendant No.1 be refunded to him with interest, if no such decree is passed in his favour.

3. Deceased / Defendant No.1 in his written statement denying the adverse averments in the plaint stated that no such agreement (Exs.P-1 & P-2) was ever executed by him with the plaintiff. In fact as he was in need of money for meeting the domestic requirements, about a week prior to 09.08.2014, he met with (PW-2) Ajay Nair at Sukma who assured him of purchasing one acre of his agricultural land for a sum of Rs.40 lakh. As the land was recorded jointly in the name of defendant No.1 and his brothers, it was agreed that after mutual partition, defendant No.1 would sell one acre of his land to (PW-2) Ajay Nair. Thereafter, (PW-2) Ajay Nair along with his friend Anoos Khan went to the house of defendant No.1 on 09.08.2014 and gave an advance of Rs.1 lakh and for security and guarantee purposes got a signature of defendant No.1 on blank stamp paper. Further, on 04.09.2014, PW-2 Ajay Nair also gave Rs. 50,00