Shardwant Rai vs Om Parkash and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—Plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 1.5.1987. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants agreed to sell the suit property at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per acre and received Rs.8,150/- as earnest money and executed the agreement of sale dated 1.5.1987. In the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed for recovery of Rs. 16,300/-.

The defendants inter alia, contended that the plaintiffs were not willing to get the sale deed executed since they have no money and they also sent a letter to the defendants on 23.6.1987 pleading their inability to get the sale deed executed on 30.6.1987, as they could not arrange the money to pay the balance sale consideration. Therefore, the plaintiffs committed a default and they are not entitled to enforce the agreement of sale and they are also not entitled for recovery of the earnest money.

On the basis of the averments, the trial Court framed appropriate issues and on a consideration of the evidence on record, found that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and there is no default on their part and accordingly decreed the suit for specific performance. The appeal filed by the defendants was unsuccessful. Hence this second appeal by the defendants.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the inaction on the part of the plaintiffs establishes the fact that they are not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that both the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents urged that the plaintiffs went to the Sub Registrar''s office on the date fixed for getting the sale deed executed with money and the defendants did not turn up. He also contended that the evidence on record clearly shows that the plaintiffs never sent any letter pleading their inability to pay the balance of the sale consideration. In order to prove that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to get the sale deed executed on the date fixed for the performance of the contract, the plaintiffs filed Exhibit P.1, which is an affidavit attested by the Sub Registrar recording the presence of the plaintiffs with the balance sale consideration. The said affidavit Exhibit P.1 was proved by PW.1, who is Reader to the Tehsildar, the registering authority. PW.1 identified the signatures of the Tehsildar on Exhibit P.1. It is clearly stated in Exhibit P.1 that Om Parkash one of the plaintiffs appeared before the Sub Registrar with the sale consideration and also with the amount required for the purpose of stamp duty and registration expenses. Both the Courts below rightly discarded the evidence adduced by the defendants giving cogent reasons.

After going through the material placed before me, I do not find any grounds to differ with the Courts below. The agreement of sale was executed in 1987. The plaintiffs filed the suit in March 1989 i.e. within a period of less than two years. It cannot be said that there is any delay in filing the suit. There is no evidence which shows that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract so as to disentitle them seeking the relief of specific performance. There is no dispute of the fact that the suit is within time.

After going through the judgments of the Courts below I do not find any grounds warranting interference with the decrees and/the judgments of the Courts below. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.