GURUPADAYYA SHIVAYYA HIREMATH Vs. SHIVAPPA BASAPPA GURAMMANAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance based on Ex. P-1, the agreement for sale of a property belonging to the defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the appellate Court while reversing that decree has granted the alternate relief to the plaintiff to recover the consideration under Ex. P-l. The decree for specific performance has been denied solely on the ground that the plaintiffs pleas are not in conformity with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

(2.) The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the appellate Court was right in stating that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance in view of his defective pleadings. The pleadings and proof in any suit for specific performance should be in conformity with the provisions of Section 16(c) and forms 47 and 48 of the first schedule in the Civil P. C. If these requirements are not complied with, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides:

(3.) It is admitted by Sri Javalli, Senior Advocate for the appellant that the plaint is silent in respect of these matters. He, however, said that the readiness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract has to be inferred from the notice issued by him against the defendant demanding execution of the sale deed and also from his subsequent conduct. He urged that the plaintiff has deposited the balance amount on 5-6-1970 during the pendency of the suit and he had also issued a notice (Ex. D-3) on 22-7-1965 asking the defendant to execute the sale deed as per terms agreed upon under Ex. P-1. I do not think that Ex. D-3 could be considered as an evidence of willingness or readiness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, so far as the subject-matter of the suit is concerned. The agreement Ex. P-l was not confined only to the property belonging to the defendant. It was executed by the defendant agreeing to sell the property belonging to him and also of his sister-in-law Mallawa. Ex. D-3 was a notice issued by the plaintiff asking the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of both those properties. But in the suit he has not claimed a decree for specific performance in respect of the property belonging to Mallawa. The plaintiff has not issued any other notice to the defendant stating that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract pertaining to the property belonging to defendant. The fact that he has deposited the balance amount on 5th June 1970 is admitted, but it cannot be weighed in favour of the plaintiff since the deposit was made after about four and half years from the date of Ex. P-1. Ex. P-1 prescribed a period of one year for performing the contract.