BHASKARAN Vs. GEORGE JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Appellant's suit for specific performance of a contract though decreed by the Munsiff was reversed by the Sub Judge.

(2.) PLAINTIFF sold the property to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 2,300/- as per Ext. B2 dated 24-2-1973. It is the case of the plaintiff that the sale deed was executed on condition that the property should be resold to the plaintiff within a period of one year on payment of Rs. 3,250/- and that along with the execution of the sale deed a separate agreement was also entered into between the parties. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that when he went to the Sub Registry office for getting the sale deed executed in his favour the plaintiff demanded some more amount, that he was net agreeable to pay the fame, that the plaintiff asked him whether he was prepared to re-sell the property within one year, that he replied that he would consider it later, that as a condition precedent for executing the sale deed the plaintiff insisted that he should execute a document expressing his readiness to re-sell the property within a period of one year and that for the sake of getting the sale deed executed in big favour he had agreed to execute a separate agreement. Defendant asserted that the agreement was not executed with his free will and that the parties never intended to act upon the same.

(3.) HOWEVER, the plaintiff cannot succeed in the suit as there is no satisfactory evidence to hold that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to get the sale deed executed in his favour. In a suit for specific performance the plaintiff has to allege his continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Readiness and willingness of a person seeking performance of an agreement where time is provided for such performance means that the person claiming performance has kept the contract subsisting with preparedness to fulfil his obligations and accept performance when the time for performance arrives. In the plaint there is no sufficient allegation that the plaintiff was willing to perform his part of the agreement. In Ext. A3 notice it is mentioned that the plaintiff approached the defendant several times to get the property reconvened to him and that the defendant has all along been dodging it. Plaintiff examined as PW. 1 has not stated even in bis chief examination that he was all along willing to perform bis part of the contract and that the defendant adopted procrastinating tactics. The evidence does not show that there was any tender of the consideration mentioned in Ext. A2 before the stipulated period. As the crucial evidence is lacking, the Sub Judge was justified in non-suiting the plaintiff. I do not find sufficient reasons to allow the Second Appeal. The Second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs. .