The appellant, originally the defendant in the trial court, challenges the judgment dated 07.06.2011, which partially allowed his second appeal (S.A No.1282 of 2008), confirming the appellate court's decision in A.S. No.39 of 2004. This decision granted specific performance in favor of the plaintiff, directing the plaintiff to pay twice the sale consideration. The main contention is whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The trial court denied specific performance, ordering a refund with interest, which the appellate court reversed. The High Court's decision and the First Appellate Court's judgment are set aside, restoring the trial court's judgment, due to the plaintiff's unexplained delay and lack of evidence for readiness and willingness.

Introduction:

1. The appellant, the original defendant, questions the legality of the judgment dated 07.06.2011, partially allowing his second appeal (S.A No.1282 of 2008) and confirming the appellate court's decision (A.S. No.39 of 2004) that granted specific performance to the plaintiff with additional sale consideration.

Background:

2. Arguments from both parties were heard, and records were reviewed.

Facts of the Case:

3. Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement dated 07.06.1993. Defendant agreed to sell property for Rs.705/- per cent, with an advance of Rs.2,005/- paid. Additional Rs.17,000/- was paid on 23.06.1993. Plaintiff issued a legal notice on 30.05.1996, which was unanswered, leading to the suit.

4. Defendant denied the claims, stating no sale transaction occurred and alleging the agreement was fabricated.

Trial Court Decision:

5. Trial court rejected specific performance but ordered a refund of Rs.37,436.80 with 24% interest from the suit date until realization. Plaintiff's appeal (A.S. No.39 of 2004) led to the appellate court granting specific performance.

Appellant's Contentions:

6. Appellant contends that the trial court's decision was correct, and the appellate court should not have interfered. Plaintiff did not prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract continuously.

7. Appellant argues that plaintiff was inactive for two years and did not demand a survey of the land, making the agreement void due to non-payment of balance within the stipulated time.

Respondent's Contentions:

8. Respondent argues that time was not the essence of the contract, and defendant's obligation to survey the land was not fulfilled. Plaintiff proved readiness and willingness, and the defendant did not cancel the agreement.

Points for Consideration:

9. The points for consideration are whether the High Court's judgment should be affirmed or reversed.

Analysis:

10. Key dates and events are summarized to provide context.

11. Amendments to the Specific Relief Act are not applicable here. Plaintiff must prove a valid agreement, defendant's breach, and readiness and willingness to perform.

Legal Framework:

12. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act outlines personal bars to relief, emphasizing readiness and willingness as a condition for specific performance.

Assessment of Readiness and Willingness:

13. Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness, distinguishing between financial capacity ("readiness") and conduct ("willingness").

14. The trial court found plaintiff inactive for two years without demanding a survey, questioning his readiness and willingness.

Conduct of Plaintiff:

15. Plaintiff’s inaction and delay in issuing the legal notice and filing the suit indicate a lack of readiness and willingness. The trial court's findings are supported by evidence and legal precedents.

Conclusion:

16. The High Court and appellate court's judgments are set aside. The trial court's judgment is restored, denying specific performance and ordering a refund. The appeal is allowed without costs.