Dismissed

Sri S Sham Raju v. Smt Meena

Karnataka HC30 Nov 2021RFA/216/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal regarding specific performance of a contract to sell agricultural land, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The court held that the appellant failed to prove the execution of the alleged agreement and failed to establish readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration, rejecting the bank passbook as sufficient evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Regular First Appeal stood dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.35/2015 stood confirmed.

Sri S Sham Raju Vs Smt Meena — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

R.F.A.No.216 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sri. S. Sham Raju, Aged about 47 years, Son of Late Ganga Raju, Residing at No.18, 6^th main, Nataraja Layout, J.P. Nagar, 7^th Phase, Bangalore - 560 078.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri. Shivarudrappa Shetkar, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Smt. Meena, Aged about 44 years, W/o. c. Ravikumar, RGS Layout, Jambu Savari Dinne, J.P. Nagar, 8^th Phase, Bangalore - 560 078. …Respondent (By Sri. Jwala Kumar, Advocate)

¶12

¶13

This R.F.A. is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to call for the records from the Trial Court i.e. the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, at Malavalli in Original Suit No.35/2015; set aside the judgment and decree dated 29-09-2016 passed in Original Suit No.35/2015 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Malavalli,

¶14

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶15

¶16

alternatively direct the defendant to refund advance amount of `11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only) with interest from the date of receipt till the date of complete refund, directing the defendant to perform her part of the contract in terms of the agreement to sell dated 19-10-2012 by obtaining either phod of the schedule property or 11-E sketch and to execute and register the Sale Deed in terms of the agreement to sell and to convey the suit schedule property to the plaintiff; directing that in event of failure on the part of the defendant, in executing and registering the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff the same be got registered by this Hon'ble Court; and to pass such other judgment and decree, or Order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, by allowing this appeal in the interest of justice and equity.

¶17

This R.F.A. coming on for Hearing, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This is a plaintiff's appeal. The present appellant as plaintiff had instituted a suit in O.S.No.35/2015 against the present respondent in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Malavalli (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”) for the relief of specific performance of the contract.

¶20

The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property which is an agricultural land measuring 02 acres

¶21

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶22

¶23

situated in Survey No.88/6p2, Halasalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. The defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of a sum of 12,00,000/-, in which regard, both the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an Agreement of Sale on Dt.19-10-2012. Under the said agreement, a sum of 2,88,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant through a bank cheque and another sum of 8,12,000/- was paid in cash, thus in total, an amount of 11,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as a part consideration of the sale value of the suit schedule property. It was also agreed that the defendant shall arrange for necessary documents including the 11-E sketch. The time agreed for the performance of the contract was three years.

¶24

It is further the case of the plaintiff that though he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to get registered the Sale Deed by paying the balance amount, however, the defendant did not agree to execute the Sale Deed in his favour. This constrained the plaintiff to issue a legal notice

¶25

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶26

¶27

to the defendant on Dt.26-05-2015 followed by a Corrigendum dated 28-08-2015. However, the defendant, in spite of receipt of the notice, neither responded to the notice nor executed the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff, by accepting the balance sale consideration, which constrained the plaintiff to institute a suit against the defendant in the Trial Court in O.S.No.35/2015 for the relief of specific performance of the contract.

¶28

In response to the suit summons served upon her, the defendant appeared through her counsel and filed her Written Statement, wherein she contended that her husband and plaintiff were friends from their childhood. Due to the medical necessities towards their family member, a loan of a sum of 3,00,000/- was requested by her from the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has issued a cheque for a sum of 2,88,000/- and the remaining 12,000/- was considered as interest at the rate of 4% per month on the said amount. The defendant further contended that the said loan amount in its entirety has been paid back to the plaintiff together with interest thereupon, still, the plaintiff who had obtained certain documents including original

¶29

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶30

¶31

title deeds of the suit schedule property from her, had misused the same and also misused the blank paper upon which her signature was obtained. With this, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

¶32

Based upon the pleading of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

¶33

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for valuable consideration of _12,00,000/- for his legal necessity and executed Agreement of Sale on 19.10.2012 by receiving advance Sale consideration of_ 11,00,000/- ( _2,88,000/through the cheque and_ 8,12,000/- by cash) agree to execute the regular registered sale deed after obtaining necessary documents by receiving balance sale consideration amount of ` 1,00,000/-?

¶34

2. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

¶35

3. Whether the defendant proves that, she borrowed a loan amount of ` 2,88,000/- from the plaintiff for interest, she repaid the same along with interest?

¶36

4. Whether the defendant proves tht, the plaintiff has concocted the document?

¶37

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶38

¶39

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled relief of Specific Performance of Contract as pleaded in the plaint?

¶40

6. What order or decree?"

¶41

In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exhibits P1 to P-7 and also Bank pass book at Ex.P-8. The defendant got herself examined as DW-1 and did not mark any documents on her behalf. After hearing both side, the Trial Court, by its impugned judgment dated 29-09-2016, while answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, issue No.4 in the affirmative and issue Nos.3 and 5 partly in the affirmative, proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

¶42

The Trial Court records were called for and the same are

¶43

placed before this Court.

¶44

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant herein and learned counsel for the defendant /respondent herein.

¶45

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶46

¶47

Perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned judgment, memorandum of regular first appeal and the Trial Court records.

¶48

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶49

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are:

¶50

1. Whether the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has executed an agreement in his favour on 19-10-2012 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to him for a total consideration of a sum of ` 12,00,000/-?

¶51

2. Whether the plaintiff has proved that under the alleged agreement dated 19-10-2012, he had parted with a sum of ` 11,00,000/- in favour of the defendant towards the partial sale consideration?

¶52

3. Whether the plaintiff has proved that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the promise under the contract?

¶53

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance as prayed for ?

¶54

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶55

¶56

5. Whether the judgment and decree under appeal warrants interference at the hands of this Court?

¶57

Learned counsel for the plaintiff in his argument vehemently submitted that, despite there being the evidence of PW-1 and also the document in the form of Ex.P-3 which is a sale agreement produced by him, the Trial Court failed to believe that there existed an Agreement of Sale dated 19-10-2012 between the parties. By expecting the agreement at Ex.P-3 to be proved in a manner of proving a Will under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, as such, the Trial Court has come to an erroneous finding against the plaintiff in answering issue No.1.

¶58

Learned counsel further submitted that the issuance of the legal notice by the plaintiff itself would go to show that, the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the promise under the contract. Further, the production of the bank pass book at Ex.P-8 also shows that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, which also has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court in its proper perspective. As such, interference by this Court in the impugned

¶59

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶60

¶61

judgment is warranted and the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed.

¶62

Learned counsel for the defendant/respondent herein

¶63

in his argument submitted that, the burden of proving the existence of the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 19-10-2012 is solely upon the plaintiff. Except producing a document at Ex.P-3, which has been seriously disputed by the defendant as an Agreement for Sale executed by her, the plaintiff has not placed any other evidence to prove the execution of the said document. As such, the Trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of agreement dated 19-10-2012 by the defendant.

¶64

Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has also utterly failed to prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the other hand, the defendant has honestly and truthfully revealed the true transaction by stating that the alleged transaction was only a loan transaction of a sum of `3,00,000/-. However the defendant could not prove about her contention of she having

¶65

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶66

¶67

cleared the said loan liability also. Thus the Trial Court though has denied the specific performance in favour of the plaintiff, but has ordered the defendant to refund the loan amount of `3,00,000/- availed by her from the plaintiff together with interest thereupon which judgment does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶68

The primary burden of proving the alleged existence of an agreement dated 19-10-2012 between himself and the defendant is upon the plaintiff. Accordingly, issue No.1 came to be framed. The plaintiff, who got himself examined as PW-1, has reiterated the plaint averments in his examination-in-chief, which is in the form of affidavit evidence. In order to show that the defendant had executed an agreement in his favour he has produced a document shown to be an Agreement of Sale and got it marked at Ex.P-3. In order to show that at the time of agreement, the defendant had also handed over the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property, he has produced the original Sale Deed of the suit schedule property standing in favour of the defendant at Ex.P-1 and an RTC extract at Ex.P-2.

¶69

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶70

¶71

Further, demanding the specific performance of the contract, he has issued a notice and a corrigendum to the defendant and the same were received by the defendant. The plaintiff also got produced and marked a copy of the legal notice at Ex.P-4, postal acknowledgement at Ex.P-5, a copy of the corrigendum at Ex.P-6 its postal acknowledgment at Ex.P-7 and his original Bank Pass Book at Ex.P-8. As already observed, no documents were exhibited and marked from the defendant’s side.

¶72

It is relying upon the oral evidence as well the documentary evidence at Ex.P-3, the plaintiff has contended that the pleading is corroborated and stands proved by the oral and documentary evidence. The oral evidence of PW-1 that the defendant had executed an agreement in his favour on 19-10-2012, apart from being denied by the defendant in her Written Statement, has also been denied from the defendant’s side in the cross-examination of PW-1. The defendant has gone to the extent of denying the very signature in Exhibit P-1, which is shown to be of the defendant in the case. On the other hand, the defendant has put her defence in the mouth of the plaintiff in

¶73

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶74

¶75

the form of suggestion, suggesting to the witness that for a family medical necessity, the defendant had availed a loan of a sum of 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and it was at that time, the plaintiff, while giving a loan of a sum of 2,88,000/- after deducting one month's interest at the rate of 4% per month on a sum of 3,00,000/-, had also collected the original document in the form of Sale Deed and other papers as a security and also had obtained the signatures of the defendant in some blank papers. As every plaintiff would do, PW-1 also has denied those suggestions. Thus, at the first instance, the defendant, both in her pleading as well in the cross-examination of PW-1, had taken a contention that the document at Ex.P-3 was not her document and she had never executed such a loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff.

¶76

The defendant, who got herself examined as DW-1 has reiterated her contention taken up in her Written Statement and contended that, at no point of time, she had entered into any agreement with the plaintiff, much less, as per Ex.P-3. She reiterated that the alleged monetary transaction was only a loan

¶77

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶78

¶79

availed from him towards the medical necessity in her family. In her cross-examination, she has given some more details as to the medical necessity stating that her daughter was suffering from psoriasis and as such, she was in dire need of finance for which she had availed loan. She categorically, throughout in her examination in chief, as well in her cross-examination, denied that she has executed the document at Ex.P-3 as an Agreement of Sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. However in her cross-examination, she has admitted one of the signatures in Ex.P-3 as her signature though she disowned the other signature in the very same document, which was also projected to be her signature by the plaintiff. At the same time of comparing one of the signatures in Ex.P-3 as her signature, the defendant has also stated in the very same crossexamination that, at the time of availing loan, the plaintiff had obtained her signature on some blank papers and the plaintiff has misused the said document and got prepared a false Agreement of Sale in the form of Ex.P-3.

¶80

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶81

¶82

Even the evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendant would clearly go to show that, throughout, in his evidence, the plaintiff has adhered to his version of the pleading. Similarly, the defendant also throughout in her evidence as DW-1, has adhered to her version. Except reiterating his contention what he had taken in his plaint, the plaintiff could not able to elicit any admissions or any further details in his favour from the defendant. Though the defendant was subjected to a detailed and extensive cross-examination, no statement made by her in her cross-examination has come out as a statement favouring the contention of the plaintiff. No doubt, she has admitted one of her signatures in Ex.P-3 as her signature but mere admission of one of the signatures in a document would itself be not sufficient to hold that the said document was executed by the alleged executant, knowing the nature of the document and admitting the contents in the said document. Thus, a difference can be made out between a mere signing a document and executing a document. It is in that context, since the evidence of PW-1 lacks those details, the necessity of examining any other person who has witnessed the execution of the document or who was

¶83

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶84

¶85

present at the time when the transaction was entered into would be required or warranted in the circumstance of the case. Therefore, without going into the aspect as to whether the document was required to be proved as though it is a Will or whether Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act plays its role in the instant case, suffice it to say that when the document on its face or the supporting evidence of PW-1 is not sufficient to prove the execution of the document, then, corroborative evidence was required. It is in that regard, it was required of the plaintiff to show that there is a corroborative evidence to prove that the alleged transaction has taken place.

¶86

The above view also gains support for the reason that, the defendant has taken a contention that the admission of the amount of `2,88,000/- is not as a part of sale consideration towards the alleged Agreement of Sale of the suit schedule property, but it was in the form of a loan. No doubt, the defendant also has neither produced any document nor produced any corroborative evidence to substantiate her contention that it was purely a loan, but it cannot be forgotten that the primary

¶87

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶88

¶89

burden of proving the document at Ex.P-3 as an Agreement of Sale, is mainly upon the plaintiff. Once he discharges the said burden, the onus shifts on the defendant. Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove and establish that, the Agreement of Sale at Ex.P-3 was executed by the defendant as an Agreement of Sale of the suit schedule property in his favour. As already observed above, the mere oral evidence of PW-1 in that regard, which has been categorically denied and disputed by the defendant in her cross-examination would not be sufficient to hold that he (plaintiff) has proved the Agreement of Sale at Ex.P-3.

¶90

The effort of the plaintiff as PW-1 in proving the alleged Agreement of Sale at Ex.P-3 as a genuine agreement entered into between the parties to the suit also can be suspected for the reasons that:

¶91

(a) According to the plaint and also the evidence of PW-1 (plaintiff), the partial sale consideration in the form of advance said to have been paid by him to the defendant was a sum of 11,00,000/-, which included a sum of 2,88,000/- in the form of

¶92

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶93

¶94

cheque and another sum of 8,12,000/- in the form of cash. No where the plaintiff has stated as to why either the alleged cheque amount or the cash amount were not rounded off to a nearest full figure like 3,00,000/- in cheque and 8,00,000/- in cash, but why it remained odd figures of 2,88,000/- in cheque and `8,12,000/- in cash;

¶95

(b) A perusal of the Agreement for Sale at Ex.P-3 shows that the advance paid by cash/cheque is shown as 9,00,000/(Rupees Nine Lakhs Only). Even though, in the contract, a sum of 2,88,000/- is shown as payment made by cheque and another sum of 8,12,000/- as made in the form of cash, but an important document which according to the plaintiff is an Agreement of Sale, specifically only mentioned that the advance paid in total was a sum of 9,00,000/-;

¶96

(c) The legal notice at Ex.P-4 mentions that, out of the advance amount of 11,00,000/-, a sum of 2,88,000/- was paid through cheque and another sum of `9,00,000/- was paid in cash. This is once again contrary to the plaint averment as well to the Agreement of Sale at Ex.P-3. A total of the said amount

¶97

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶98

¶99

of 9,00,000/- and 2,88,000/- would come to a sum of `11,88,000/-, which is not at all the case of the plaintiff;

¶100

(d) To over come the lacuna which could be noticed in the legal notice at Ex.P-4, the plaintiff has issued a corrigendum, as per Ex.P-6, which is three months after the legal notice at Ex.P-4. The corrigendum dated 28-08-2015 in the conclusive paragraph mentions that by a bona fide mistake, in paragraph 2(b) of the legal notice issued to the defendant, the cash amount has been mentioned as 9,00,000/- instead of the correct mentioning of a sum of 8,88,000/-. Stating so, it is mentioned in the very same corrigendum that the said corrigendum to read the cash portion received by the defendant as `8,88,000/-.

¶101

Assuming for a moment that by over sight, some mistake was crept in while issuing the notice at Ex.P4, as such, a corrigendum was issued, if the contents of the corrigendum that, a cash that was paid was not a sum of 9,00,000/- but it was a sum of 8,88,000/- is accepted as the true version, still, the total amount of advance said to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant comes to a total sum of 11,76,000/- [i.e.2,88,000/-

¶102

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶103

¶104

(by cheque) + `8,88,000/- (by cash)], which is also not the case of the plaintiff. Thus in the Agreement of Sale at Ex.P-3, in the legal notice of Ex.P-4 and the corrigendum at Ex.P-6, there is no consistency at all and then with respect to the alleged payment of the advance amount, at each place, a different figure has been stated by the plaintiff. Therefore, when the documents in the form of Exs.P-3, P-4 and P-6 have failed to give any clear picture with respect to the alleged Agreement of Sale, when the oral evidence of PW-1 also does not give any clarification on these major discrepancies found in the case of the plaintiff, it was invariably required for the plaintiff, at least to examine any of the witnesses to the alleged Agreement for Sale said to have been entered into between himself and the defendant. Since the plaintiff has failed to meet the said necessity nor proved his case, the Trial Court though has attributed a different reasoning to answer issue No.1 in the negative, has given a right finding answering the said issue in the negative, to interfere in which finding, I do not find any ground.

¶105

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶106

¶107

So far as proving the readiness and willingness is concerned, the plaintiff, except stating in his plaint as well in his evidence that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, has not elaborated as to how he could show that, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. No doubt, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant in his argument submitted that the plaintiff has produced his bank pass book at Ex.P-8 to show that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

¶108

Admittedly, there is no oral evidence with respect to the bank pass book at Ex.P-8. When a document is not selfexplanatory and contains recording of more number of transactions than the one under dispute, then, some part of evidence either oral or documentary to explain the document under scrutiny which is Ex.P-8 here was very much necessary. As such, it was not sufficient for the plaintiff to produce Ex.P-8 and keep quiet, without mentioning anything about the document. In order to prove the readiness and willingness, he (plaintiff) was required to speak something more about the

¶109

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶110

¶111

contents of the document and which are the entries in the said pass book, which contains large number of entries pertaining to his contention of showing his readiness and willingness. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not discharged the said burden.

¶112

On the other hand, a perusal of Ex.P-8 would go to show that the said document which is a bank pass book appears to be standing in the name of the plaintiff is for a period from 06-01-2012 upto 17-10-2013. Admittedly, the legal notice at Ex.P-4 was issued to the defendant on 26-05-2015 i.e. nearly two years after the last entry made in the bank pass book. Whether the plaintiff had any means to pool up the fund or whether he had financial capacity to pay the alleged balance amount under the alleged Sale Agreement as on the date of issuing the legal notice at Ex.P-4, as on the date of issuance of corrigendum as per Ex.P-6, or as on the date of institution of the suit by the plaintiff which was on 16-10-2015, cannot be made known from any of these documents.

¶113

In the case of Punny Akat Philip Raju, since dead

¶114

by his LRs. Vs. Sri. Dinesh Reddy reported in ILR 2016

¶115

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶116

¶117

Kar.2252 , a Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 32 of its judgment was pleased to observe that, the proof of readiness necessarily means demonstration of financial ability or capacity to pay the balance sale consideration and take the sale deed. When a person on oath states in the witness box that he is ready with the requisite funds, he must produce some evidence to prove his possession of the required funds. The explanation to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act makes it clear that the proof of requisite funds does not mean he should produce the currency before the Court or he should deposit the money in Court. But at the same time, mere statement on oath in the witness box that he is possessed of the requisite funds would also do not prove the possession of funds. The said proof has to be necessarily by way of documentary evidence.

¶118

In paragraph 33 of the same judgment, it was further held that, when a person claims that he is possessed of sufficient funds, he has to produce some documentary evidence, which proves his capacity to raise the funds or he possess the funds. It may be a pass book issued by a Bank where he has kept the

¶119

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶120

¶121

balance sale consideration ready for payment. If he has invested his money by way of securities, he has to produce those Certificates/securities before the Court to show that, any time he can encash the same and pay the balance sale consideration. If he intends to borrow from a Nationalised Bank or from his employer or from any other financial Institution, it has to be demonstrated by producing a request for such financial assistance in writing, sanctioning of the said loan, which has to be necessarily in writing.

¶122

Thus, it has been clearly held in the said judgment that, there must be some material documents and proof to show that the plaintiff, as an agreement holder and purchaser, has always been ready and willing to perform his/her part of the promise under the contract. A mere statement that he or she is ready and willing to perform his/her promise would only show his/her desire to acquire the property by purchasing the same, but it does not substitute the requirement of proving his/her readiness in the matter.

¶123

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶124

¶125

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.S. Venkatesh

¶126

Vs. A.S.C. Murthy (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others

¶127

reported in 2020 (3) Supreme Court Cases 280 at paragraph 16 was pleased to observe as follows:

¶128

“ 16. The words “ready and willing” imply that the plaintiff was prepared to carry out those parts of the contract to their logical end so far as they depend upon his performance. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of performance. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior, and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount which he has to pay the defendant must be of necessity to be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution of the contract till the date of decree, he must prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready to perform his contract.”

¶129

In the instant case as observed above, except taking a contention in the plaint and reiterating the said contention in his oral evidence, the plaintiff has not placed a piece of paper to

¶130

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶131

¶132

show that during the period when the contract could have been specifically enforced, he had financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration, as such, was ready to perform his part of the contract.

¶133

Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant also canvassed a point that the defendant was required to furnish 11-E sketch and as such, unless she produces such a sketch, the question of the plaintiff showing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the promise under the contract would not arise. The said argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant is also not acceptable for the reason that, the defendant's non-performance of a promise under an Agreement of Sale would not be an excuse for the plaintiff for the nonperformance of his part of the promise under the same contract unless the performance of the promise on the part of the agreement holder, i.e. the plaintiff is contingent upon the performance of the promise on the part of the defendant (respondent herein). There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff showing his readiness and willingness was contingent

¶134

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶135

¶136

upon the defendant performing any of or alleged part of the promise under the alleged agreement. As such, I do not find any error in the finding of the Trial Court in answering issue No.2 in the negative.

¶137

Even though the plaintiff's case could not stand on its own leg, however, after considering the fact that the defendant herself, both in her pleading as well in her evidence has admitted the receipt of a sum of 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff as a hand loan agreeing to repay the same, with a particular rate of interest, which, according to her, is @ 4%, the Trial Court has rightly considered the said angle of the case also and though it has rightly denied the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff/appellant, but has granted him the relief of entitlement to receive a sum of 3,00,000/- from the defendant along with interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of the suit till realisation. Admittedly, the defendant has not challenged the said finding by filling a cross appeal or counter objection. As such also, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said finding of the Trial Court.

¶138

R.F.A.No.216/2017

¶139

¶140

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶141

O R D E R

¶142

[i] The Regular First Appeal stands dismissed;

¶143

[ii] The judgment and decree dated 29-09-2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Malavalli, in O.S.No.35/2015, stands confirmed.

¶144