IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Amendment brought to Specific Relief Act by Act 18 of 2018 is prospective in nature and cannot be applied to those transactions which took place prior to amendment.
(2) There is distinction between terms ‘readiness’ and ‘willingness’ – ‘Readiness’ is capacity of plaintiff to perform contract which includes his financial position to pay sale consideration – ‘Willingness’ is conduct of party.
(3) Suit for specific performance can be filed even on last date of limitation as prescribed under Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. The appellant who is the original defendant before the trial Court has preferred this appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 07.06.2011 whereunder the second appeal filed by him in S.A No.1282 of 2008 came to be partly allowed, confirming the order of the appellate court passed in A.S. No.39 of 2004 which granted the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff and directed the respondent-plaintiff to pay additional sale consideration namely twice the sale consideration.

2. We have heard the arguments of Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant and Shri D. Bharat Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent perused the records.

Brief Background

3. The respondent herein who was the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 07.06.1993 by contending inter alia that appellant-defendant had agreed to sell the property measuring Ac.1.38 cents for a total consideration of Rs.705/- per cent as per the terms reduced by way of an agreement executed on the same day whereunder plaintiff claimed to have paid an advance amount of Rs.2,005/- and defendant agreed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one year after getting the suit property surveyed. Further sum of Rs.17,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 23.06.1993. It is the case of the plaintiff that despite demand, the defendant postponed the execution of the sale deed and as such plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 30.05.1996 to the defendant for which no reply was received and as such suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 07.06.1993 or in the alternate for the refund of the advance money paid with interest came to be filed.

4. Upon service of suit summons defendant appeared and filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint in toto and further contended that the legal notice was duly replied. There was a total denial of sale transaction and it was also contended that one Varahanarsimhan @ Varam had taken signature of the defendants on blank stamp papers and plaintiff being closely related to the said person, had created an agreement of sale of suit schedule property in order to get illegal benefits. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed four issues and after examining the pleadings and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, rejected the claim for specific performance and granted the alternate relief namely ordered for refund of the amount of Rs.37,436.80 with 24% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of suit filed to till date of realisation. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court namely refusal to decree for specific performance, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal against A.S. No.39 of 2004. The appellate court on reappreciation of pleadings and evidence reversed the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit in toto namely the relief of specific performance was granted in favour of plaintiff.

6. The defendant being aggrieved by the same filed second appeal S.A No.1282 of 2008 which came to be allowed by judgment dated 07.06.20211 in part namely the plaintiff was directed to pay additional sale consideration namely twice the sale consideration stipulated under the agreement of sale.

7. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that trial court had rightly rejected the prayer for specific performance on appreciation of evidence which finding did not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and as such the appellate court ought not to have interfered with the findings of the trial court. It is further contended that plaintiff had failed to lead any evidence or produce or tender proof that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract continuously.

7.1 It is also submitte