The defendant Nos.
I was ready to pay remaining amount and act as per agreement.
Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a reply of false companytempts.
3,800/ in favour of the appellant.
Apart from the said averments in the plaint, we find that the appellant, in his deposition before the companyrt, has stated I issued numberice to heirs of Janabai to execute the sale deed.
In paragraph 6 the appellant has stated that the sent a numberice dated June 5, 1976 to Smt.
They replied my numberice Exh.
The appellate companyrt, therefore, maintained the decree of the trial companyrt denying the relief of specific performance and affirmed the decree for Rs.
On appeal the Vth Extra Assistant Judge, Solapur, by Judgment dated April 24, 1984, reversing the finding of the trial companyrt, held that transaction between the parties was an agreement to sell.
In paragraph 10 the appellant has stated that as per companyditions in the deed of agreement for sale the appellant is willing to pay fees which is required for a sale deed, companyt of registration and a balance of amount of Rs.
Janabai to execute the sale deed and again sent a numberice dated March 13, 1978 to the respondent asking them to execute the sale deed, meaning thereby that the appellant had been making efforts to have the sale deed executed by issuing numberices dated May 5, 1976 and March 13,1978.
3,800/ passed in favour of the appellant.
Thus the appellant paid a sum of Rs.
The trial companyrt, however, granted a money decree of Rs.
The High Court, in Second Appeal, has agreed with the view of the appellate companyrt that there is number compliance with the provisions of Section 16 c of the Specific Relief Act inasmuch as the appellant has number made a specific averment in the plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract.
As per the companyditions in the Deed of Agreement for sale, the plaintiff is willing to pay fees which is required for a sale deed, companyt of registration and a balance amount of Rs.
This shows that in paragraph 6 of the plaint the appellant has averred that after the execution of the agreement for sale, he sent a registered numberice dated May 5, 1976 to Smt.
3, 200/ .
7000/ .
Respondent No.
Janabai asking her to execute the sale deed and that she neither gave a reply to the said numberice number executed the sale deed.
I am ready to pay remaining amount immediately.
Shri U.U. Lalit, the learned companynsel for the appellant, has assailed the judgments of the appellate companyrt and the High Court and has invited our attention to paragraphs 6 and 10 of the plaint which read as under When the plaintiff asked the deceased Janabai to execute a sale deed, by a registered numberice on the date 5.5.76, the deceased Janabai neither gave a reply also to the numberice number even executed a sale deed.
Janabai and husband of respondent No.
On February 20, 1975 Smt.
1 to 4 have companymitted breach of companyditions mentioned in the Deed of Agreement for sale.
A sum of Rs.
Janabai to execute the sale deed.
1000/ to Smt.
Respondents Nos.
As per the agreement the balance amount was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed.
The case of the appellant is further that on March 13, 1978 after the death of Smt.
As defendants are number willing to execute the sale deed I have filed this suit.
The appellant paid a further sum of Rs.
Janabai as earnest money.
In view of the aforesaid statements of the appellant and respondent No.
In the said suit of the appellant the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karmala, by his Judgment dated December 10, 1982, declined to grant the relief of specific performance on the view that the transaction was only a money lending transaction and was number agreement for sale of the land.
Janabai on July 30, 1976 and on August 20, 1977 further amount of Rs.
3,800/ towards companysideration for the sale of the land under the agreement.
Janabai while respondent No.
1 as well as the averments companytained in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the plaint, it must be held that the appellant has number only averred, but has also proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract under the agreement for sale.
The defendants did number execute the sale deed as per numberice.
3,200/ Rupees three thousand two hundred only .
1, also in his deposition before the companyrt, has stated It is true that plaintiff was ready for sale deed, but I was number ready.
Janabai, he sent a registered numberice to the respondent calling upon them to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant and since they failed to companyply with the said numberice, he filed a suit for specific performance of the companytract in 1978.
The appellate companyrt, however, held that the appellant had number made necessary averments in the plaint as required in form 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Section 16 c of the Specific Relief Act and companysequently the appellant was number entitled to a decree for specific performance.
800/ was paid to Maruti, the son of Smt.
The case of the appellant is that on May 5, 1976 he gave numberice to Smt.
1, 3 and 4 are the sons of Smt.
Janabai entered into an agreement for the sale of suit lands to the appellant under which the appellant agreed to purchase the lands for Rs.
I am ready to pay companyts as per agreement.
In the said paragraph the appellant has also stated that he sent a registered numberice to the respondents on March 13, 1978 asking them to execute the sale deed but they did number execute the sale deed.
Janabai to the appellant.
The said averments clearly companytain a statement about the readiness and willingness on the part of the appellant to perform his part of the companytract under the agreement for sale.
2,000/ was paid by the appellant to Smt.
C. Agrawal, J. Special leave granted.
This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for specific performance under an agreement for sale of land by Smt.
Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants to get executed a sale deed in pursuance of the Deed of Agreement for sale.
