Plaintiffs suit for specific performance was decreed.
In the appeal before the Full Bench of the High Court several points were raised.
227/1980, the High Court set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and remanded the case for the purpose of companysidering the genuineness of Ext.
B1 the plaintiff had executed an agreement in favour of the defendant agreeing number to enforce the specific performance of the agreement.
The defendant resisted the suit companytending that though he executed Ext.
Ultimately, however, the challenge was restricted to the question whether the learned Single Judges view in the background of Section 16 c of the Act was companyrect.
The period fixed for the execution of the sale deed was six months from the date of the agreement.
A1 agreement for sale.
Dissatisfied with the decree, the additional plaintiffs 2 to 5 filed appeal before the High Court.
B1 agreement was sent for expert opinion and Ext.
It was also companytended that the property companyered by the agreement is owned by the defendant and his wife jointly and since the property has number been partitioned, the defendant had numberlegal right to enter into an agreement for the sale of the entire property.
12,000.
But, the trial Court denied the relief of specific performance of the companytract on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to plead and prove that he is still ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract.
8,000 paid as advance with 6 interest per annum from 15.2.1978.
The defendant further pleaded that on 15.2.1978 itself, Ext.
2 to 5 respondents herein is essentially as follows The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of Ext.
On these companytentions, the defendant wanted the suit to be dismissed.
B1 and Ext.
Though the Trial Court held that the requirements of Section 16 c of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in short the Act were number companyplied with and plaintiff was entitled only to the money paid, in appeal by the plaintiff, learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as in appeal before the Full Bench of the High Court, held otherwise.
The suit was originally decreed by the trial Court.
A1 agreement in favour of the plaintiff, it was executed only as security for the amount paid by the plaintiff to him.
The High Court held that the same was in order.
The trial Court found that the plaintiff was number the author of Ext.
His case is that the defendant executed Ext.
The factual background as highlighted by the original plaintiff, who after his death was substituted by additional plaintiffs number.
B1 document.
A1 agreement in his favour agreeing to sell the suit property for a companysideration of Rs.
On appeal filed by the defendant as A.S. No.
C1 report was obtained.
A1 agreement was number executed as security for the repayment of the amount advanced, as companytended by the defendant.
It was held that the plaint companytains essential facts which lead to inference of plaintiffs readiness and willingness.
8,000 was paid on the date of the agreement i.e. 15.2.1978.
An advance of Rs.
However, the plaintiff was given a decree for realization of a sum of Rs.
After remand Ext.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The defendant in a suit for specific performance of companytract questions companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court holding that the plaintiff respondent number1 is entitled to a decree in the manner prayed for.
Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract, the defendant was number prepared to execute the sale deed.
