K. CHEKKUNNI Vs. AHAMMED @ AHAMMED KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale is the appellant. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement Ext. A1 dated 13-8-1980 in which the, defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff 6 cents of land at the rate of Rs. 800/- per cent. On the date of Ext. A1 agreement, plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 501/- and the sale was to be completed within 15-9-1980, after measuring and fixing the boundaries of the property by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, he went to the defendant many times and demanded execution of the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration and also requested the defendant to be present in the Sub Registrar's Office on 15-9-1980 for executing the document. According to the plaintiff, he was present in the Sub Registrar's Office on that day, but the defendant did not turn up. So, on 16-9-1980 the plaintiff sent a lawyer notice Ext. A2 to the defendant, requesting him to execute the document within 10 days and stating that if it was not done, he will be compelled to file a suit. To the above notice the defendant sent a reply notice Ext. A3 dated 4-10-1980 stating that he was present in the Sub Registrar's Office on the 15th, that the plaintiff wanted a reduction in the price of the property from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 400/- and that it was due to the fault of the plaintiff that the sale could not be effected. To Ext. A3 notice the plaintiff immediately thereafter sent another lawyer notice Ext. A4 dated 10-10-1980 stating that he was always ready and willing to pay the price as agreed to in Ext. A1 and that he never wanted any reduction of the price. He reiterated in Ext. A4 notice that he is willing to purchase the property for the price agreed to and requested the defendant to be present in the Sub Registrar's Office on 22-10-1980. To the above notice the defendant sent a reply Ext. A5 dated 21-10-1980 stating that as the plaintiff was not originally prepared to purchase the property for the price agreed to by him, the contract stands repudiated and that he is not prepared to execute the document. After receipt of this notice, the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement, alleging that the defendant is bound to execute a sale deed of the plaint property in his favour in accordance with the provisions of Ext. A1 agreement, on receipt of the balance of sale, consideration.

(2.) The defendant filed a written statement reiterating therein that the sale deed could not be executed as the plaintiff wanted a reduction of the price, that it was due to the plaintiff's fault that the sale could not be effected in time and that he is not liable to execute any sale deed thereafter. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in accordance with Ext. A1 agreement and accordingly the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff deposited the balance sale price payable by him under Ext.A1 agreement, parties adduced evidence and the Trial Court accepting the case of the plaintiff decreed the suit. But in appeal the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff has not made the necessary allegations nor has he proved his readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract as provided for in S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the suit for specific performance was dismissed. Plaintiff has come up in appeal against the dismissal of his suit by the lower appellate court.