APHC010373842003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 1972/2003 Between: G.appaji Rao ...APPELLANT AND D Sathemma Died and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. - 2. E V V S RAVI KUMAR 3. P V VIDYASAGAR The Court made the following: Reserved on 18.11.2025 Pronounced on 21.11.2025 Uploaded on 21.11.2025 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.1972 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2003 in O.S.No.262 of 1995 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 2. Originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiff aga`ainst the defendant Nos.1 to 6 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16.10.1995 by directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and direct the defendants to execute the registered sale deed/sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees and receive the balance of sale consideration and if in case the defendants fail to execute the registered sale deed/sale deeds, the Court may execute the registered sale deed/deeds in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee on behalf of the defendants and pass a decree for possession of the plaint schedule property and in the alternative pass a preliminary decree for recovery of the amount claimed in the suit with subsequent interest till realization at 24% p.a.y.c., by granting the time for redumption with a charge on the plaint schedule property. The defendant No.1 died during the pendency of suit, her legal representatives are brought on record as respondent Nos.7 to 10. During pendency of the first appeal, respondent No.8 died, her legal representative is brought on record as respondent No.11. VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 3. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows: The defendant No.1 is the owner of Ac.2.60 covered by S.No.144/3 and old S.No.144 of Ramnayyapeta and put up the plaint schedule property for sale. While so, the plaintiff offered highest market price of Rs.3,00,000/- and the defendant No.1 agreed to sell the entire plaint schedule property on 16.10.1992 and executed a registered agreement of sale on the same day and also received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. The plaintiff pleaded that it is agreed that he has to be ready with the balance sale consideration within 3 months from the date of agreement and the defendant No.1 agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees and at that time the defendant No.6 was present. The plaintiff further pleaded that he made the balance of sale consideration ready before the due date and requested the defendant No.1 several times to perform her part of contract. But, the defendant No.1 used to postpone the execution on one ground or the other and on believing the defendant No.1, the plaintiff kept quiet. The plaintiff further pleaded that later he came to know that all the defendants with the full knowledge of agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, creating the documents with anti date with an idea to overcome the registered agreement in favour of the plaintiff, thereafter, the plaintiff contacted the 2nd defendant’s husband and the 6th defendant and requested them to see that the sale may be completed. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued a VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 registered notice to the defendants on 03.10.1995 and the defendant No.1 refused to receive the same and the defendant Nos.2 to 6 got issued reply on 22.10.1995. He further pleaded that in case, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the specific performance of agreement, then he would be entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with an interest @ 24% p.a., till the realization with a charge on the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit. 4. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.6, which was adopted by the defendant Nos.2 to 5, are as follows: The plaintiff is fully aware of the fact that there was an agreement of sale in favour of the defendant No.6 by the defendant No.1 on 10.12.1990 and the defendant No.6 purchased the same for Rs.1,80,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- as advance and the balance has to be paid at the time of the registration and delivery of possession. He further pleaded that the defendant Nos.2 to 6 purchased the property which was executed by the defendant No.1 in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 10.12.1990. The defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the bona fide purchasers for value and consideration and the agreement of sale dated 16.10.1992 is not binding on the defendants and all the original documents are in the custody of the defendant No.1 and she delivered the same to the defendant Nos.2 to 6. 5. The defendant Nos.7, 8 and 10 remained exparte and the brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.9 are as follows: VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 The plaintiff filed the plaint on assumptions and presumptions and the plaintiff has not paid any amount under the alleged sale agreement. He further pleaded that the sale agreement of the plaintiff is rank forgery and the plaintiff and the defendant No.6 have colluded and created the sale agreement and she denied all the allegations in the plaint specifically. The defendant No.6 filed additional written statement by stating the suit is barred by the law of limitation and the plaintiff is estopped from claiming any specific performance. Therefore, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 6. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 16.10.1992 is true & valid? 2) Whether the sale agreement dated 10.12.1990 in favour of D-6 is true & valid? 3) Whether D-2 to D-6 are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration? 4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16-10-1992? 5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief of refund of advance as prayed for? and 6) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked. On behalf of the VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 defendant Nos.2 to 6, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-13 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in dismissing the suit, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. 10. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the sole-appellant died and his Legal Representatives are brought on record as appellant Nos.2 to 4. 11. Heard Sri K. A. Narasimham, learned Counsel on behalf of Sri Polisetty Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned Counsel on behalf respondents/defendants. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that prior to the execution of Ex.A-2 registered agreement of sale dated 16.10.1992, the defendant No.1 issued a paper publication under Ex.A-1 dated 27.09.1992, stating that the schedule property is free from all encumbrances and all the agreements and power of attorney, if any, executed by her stood cancelled, but the trial Court did not consider the same. He would further contend that the plaintiff has proved Ex.A-2 by examining the attestor and the scribe of the document, but the trial Court came to a wrong conclusion that Ex.A-2 is not proved. He would further contend that the plaintiff has entered into a registered agreement of sale with the defendant No.1 only after verifying the VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 paper publication under Ex.A-1 and he would further contend that the learned trial Judge without appreciating the evidence in the proper manner came to a wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit. 13. Per contra, Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to a conclusion that Ex.A-2 agreement is not a genuine one and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. He would further contend that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the findings given by the learned trial Judge in its judgment and the appeal may be dismissed. 14. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit and the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1) Whether the Ex.A-2 agreement dated 16.10.1992, is true, valid? 2) Whether the Ex.B-7 sale agreement dated 10.12.1990, in favour of defendant No.6 is true & valid? 3) Whether the defendant Nos.2 to 6 are bona fide purchasers under Ex.B- 2 to Ex.B-6 registered sale deeds? VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16-10-1992, or whether the plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief of refund of advance amount as sought for? 15. Point No.1: Whether the Ex.A-2 agreement, dated 16.10.1992, is true, valid? The suit filed by the plaintiff is based on Ex.A-2 agreement of sale said to have been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff herein seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale under Ex.A-2 dated 16.10.1992 said to have been executed by the defendant No.1, the defendant Nos.2 to 6 are seriously disputing Ex.A-2 agreement of sale. The law in this regard is well settled that “the grant of decree of specific performance of agreement of sale is not in automatic and it is required to be exercised judiciously sound and reasonable”. In order to prove Ex.A-2 agreement of sale, the plaintiff examined one of the attestors under Ex.A-2 agreement of sale as P.W.2, the scribe of Ex.A-2 agreement of sale as P.W.3. Ex.A-2 agreement of sale is a registered agreement of sale. In Ex.A-2, it was recited that the defendant No.1 agreed to alienate the plaint schedule property for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and from out of which the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 and executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the same is registered. It is in the evidence of P.W.2 that she is the defendant No.7 in the suit and the defendant No.1 is her mother, who is an illiterate, and she is also VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 an illiterate and she cannot sign and she used to affix her thumb mark only on the document. She further admits that the plaintiff gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as an advance to the defendant No.1 and her mother executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff and she along with her mother, her sisters and the village Karnam were present at the time of execution of the sale agreement. She further admits that she affixed her thumb mark and her mother also affixed her thumb mark in it and her husband signed in the said agreement, sisters also affixed their thumb marks. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant Nos.2 to 6 pointed out some of the admissions made by P.W.2 in her evidence in cross-examination. It is needless to say that it is the specific case of P.W.2 that she is none other than one of the daughters of the executant of Ex.A-2 and her husband was also present at the time of execution of Ex.A-2 agreement and her sisters were also present at the time of Ex.A-2 agreement and they have signed on the Ex.A-2 as the attestors. In my view, to test the veracity of evidence of the witness, her total evidence has to be looked into and the entire evidence of the witness has to be taken into consideration. She narrated in her evidence that she is an illiterate and she is not a signatory, therefore, her illiteracy cannot be taken as an advantage to rule out her total evidence. P.W.2 stated about the execution of Ex.A-2 agreement in favour of the plaintiff and also and receipt of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by the defendant No.1. It is in the evidence of the P.W.3 that he is the document writer and also the scribe of Ex.A-2 agreement of sale and the defendant No.1 agreed to sell VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 her property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed the same. The plaintiff approached him to scribe an agreement on which he enquired the other party also and after arrival of both the parties, he prepared the Ex.A-2 agreement. He further deposed that at that time the defendant No.1 received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and affixed her thumb mark on the document. He further deposed that along with defendant No.1, two other persons were also present and out of them two female persons and one male person and the two daughters of the defendant No.1 also affixed their thumb marks on Ex.A-2 and the husband of P.W.2 signed on the Ex.A-2 agreement as an attestor. It is not the case of the defendant Nos.2 to 6 that they are having enmity with the scribe of Ex.A-2 and that he deposed falsehood against them. The learned trial Judge, without appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in a proper manner, came to a wrong conclusion that Ex.A-2 agreement of sale is not a genuine document and that it is a fabricated document. Therefore, the said finding is liable to be set aside. In my view, Ex.A-2 agreement of sale is a true and valid document. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered. 16. Point No.2:- Whether the Ex.B-7 sale agreement dated 10.12.1990, in favour of defendant No.6 is true & valid? It is the specific case of the defendant No.6 that the plaintiff is fully aware of the fact that there was an agreement of sale in favour of the defendant No.6 on 10.12.1990 and the defendant No.6 purchased the VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 property for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and paid an advance of Rs.10,000/- and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of registering the sale deed and also to obtain delivery. There is a documentary evidence on record to show that subsequent to Ex.B-7 agreement, the defendant No.6 paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- by way of cheque drawn at Godavari Grameena Bank, Kakinada, on 23.02.1993, in favour of the defendant No.1 and the counterfoil of the cheque is marked as Ex.B-8 and by evidencing the said payment, the defendant No.1 also passed Ex.B-9 receipt on the same day. Therefore, it is evident that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.1,82,000/-, the defendant No.6 paid a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 prior to obtaining the registered sale deeds. The defendant No.6/D.W.1 narrated in his evidence about the execution of Ex.B-7 agreement by the defendant No.1 and the attestors to the Ex.B-7 are none other than the daughters of the defendant No.1 and the husband of P.W.2. P.W.2 also admits in her evidence in chief-examination itself that the defendant No.6 has obtained her thumb impression, but denied the payment of advance sale consideration. The husband of P.W.2 signed on Ex.B-7 agreement as one of the attestors. It is the specific case of the defendant Nos.2 to 6 that the plaintiff is having prior knowledge about the Ex.B-7 agreement of sale. In his evidence in chief-examination itself, P.W.1 narrated that he learnt that the defendant No.1 alienated the property to others and he came to know that the defendant No.1 has sold the said property to the defendant Nos.2 to 6. He further admits that he knows the defendant No.6 and the defendant No.1 informed that the VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 defendant No.6 also purchased one acre of land, she informed the same on 30.09.1992 i.e., prior to the agreement under Ex.A-2. The scribe of Ex.B-7 agreement is examined as D.W.2 by the defendant No.6 and the evidence of D.W.2 also goes to show about the execution of Ex.B-7 agreement of sale and receipt of advance sale consideration under Ex.B-7 dated 10.12.1990. In all the registered sale deeds of defendant Nos.2 to 6 under Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-6, the agreement of sale under Ex.B-7, dated 10.12.1990 is referred. The evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 discloses that the defendant No.1 agreed to sell the plaint schedule property in the year 1990 itself and she executed Ex.B-7 agreement dated 10.12.1990. Ex.B-7 shows that the defendant No.1 agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,82,000/- , out of which an amount of Rs.10,000/- was received by the defendant No.1 in the presence of her daughters and son-in-law and also agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,72,000/- on the date of registration of sale deed and agreed to deliver the possession after execution of regular registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.6 or his nominees. Ex.B-8 and Ex.B-9 show that the defendant No.1 received an amount of Rs.90,000/- by way of cheque on 23.02.1993 and also passed a receipt on the same day by acknowledging the same. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that prior to obtaining Ex.A-2 agreement, the vendor gave a paper publication under Ex.A-1, after having knowledge of the same, the plaintiff purchased the property under Ex.A-2 agreement dated 16.10.1992. Ex.A-1 is a paper publication and the VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 advocate who gave the paper publication dated 27.09.1992, is examined as P.W.4. He deposed in his evidence that he has been practicing as an advocate since 1986 and as per the instructions given by the defendant No.1, he gave a paper publication under Ex.A-1, which relates to the plaint schedule property, later no one came forward to make any objections. In cross- examination he admits that the defendant No.1 gave instructions by saying if any previous agreements are there, those are not valid and he mentioned the same in the paper publication. It clearly goes to show that the defendant No.1 had executed Ex.B-7 agreement of sale and in cross-examination; P.W.4 further admits that she did not question the defendant No.1 about the particulars of previous agreements executed by her, if any. But, Ex.A-1 paper publication itself is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the Ex.B-7 agreement is deemed to be cancelled. It is also evident that on 29.04.1993, the defendant No.1 executed registered sale deeds under Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-6 dated 29.04.1993 and delivered the possession to the defendant Nos.2 to 6 respectively. Therefore, it is quite clear that the plaintiff is having prior knowledge about Ex.B-7 agreement dated 10.12.1990, and on knowing the same the plaintiff obtained agreement under Ex.A-2 dated 16.10.1992. Therefore, Ex.B-7 agreement is true, valid and duly proved by the defendant No.6. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered. 17. Point No.3:- Whether the defendant Nos.2 to 6 are bonafide purchasers under Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-6 registered sale deeds? VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 It is pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that the defendant No.6 is the person, who was also present while the transaction and negotiations by the plaintiff with the defendant No.1. He pleaded that the defendant Nos.2 to 6 are not bona fide purchasers. In his evidence in cross-examination, the plaintiff admits that the defendant No.6 was not present at the time of Ex.A-2. Admittedly, the defendant No.6 is not either an attestor or the scribe of Ex.A-2. Ex.A-2 does not contain the signature of the defendant No.6. Moreover, the plaintiff admitted in his evidence that he learnt that the defendant No.1 alienated the property to the defendant Nos.2 to 6. He further admits that the defendant No.1 executed the sale deed in the year 1993 and he admits that in all the sale deeds of the defendant Nos.2 to 6, Ex.B-7 agreement dated 10.12.1990 in favour of defendant No.6 is referred. As narrated supra, Ex.B-7 agreement dated 10.12.1990 is true and valid. Furthermore, the plaintiff admits that the defendant No.1 informed on 30.09.1992 i.e. much prior to Ex.A-2 agreement itself about the purchase of property by the defendant No.6. The evidence on record goes to show that consequent to the execution of Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-6 registered sale deeds, the defendant Nos.2 to 6 came into possession of their respective properties and their possession is also recognized by the Revenue authorities. There is evidence on record to show that the vendees/defendant Nos.2 to 6 obtained the registered sale deed under Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-6 after payment of sale consideration and they came into possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the bona fide purchasers of the plaint VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 schedule property under Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-7. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered. 18. Point No.4 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16-10-1992, or whether the plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief of refund of advance amount as sought for? As stated supra, Ex.A-2 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff is true and valid. The recitals under Ex.A-2 agreement dated 16.10.1992 goes to show that the defendant No.1 agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, and from out of which the defendant No.1 received an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of Ex.A-2 agreement of sale and it was agreed by both the parties i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, that the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to the defendant No.1 within three (03) months from the date of Ex.A-2 and after receiving the balance sale consideration, possession shall be delivered on the date of registered sale deed. Admittedly, the remaining sale consideration was unpaid to the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff within the stipulated period of three (03) months or prior to filing of the suit. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff did not issue any legal notice to the defendant No.1 within a period of three (03) months to show that he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and he is ready to obtain a registered sale deed. The plaintiff issued Ex.A-3 legal notice dated 03.10.1995, after waiting for more than 2 years and 11 months from the date VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 of Ex.A-2 agreement of sale to the defendant Nos.2 to 6 i.e., after having knowledge of Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-6 sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6. Originally, the suit was filed against the defendant Nos.1 to 6 and during the pendency of the suit the defendant No.1 died and her Legal Representatives were brought on record and during the pendency of the present first appeal the defendant No.8/respondent No.8 died and her Legal Representative was brought on record as respondent No.11. As seen from the material available on record, even as per his own evidence, the plaintiff is aware about the alienation of property to the defendant Nos.2 to 6 by the defendant No.1 prior to the Ex.A-2 agreement of sale itself. As stated supra, Ex.B-7 agreement was obtained by the defendant No.6 in respect of the plaint schedule property on 10.12.1990 and the attestors in Ex.B-7 are daughters and son-in-law of the defendant No.1. Therefore, Ex.B-7 agreement dated 10.12.1990 prevails over Ex.A-2, even if the Ex.A-2 agreement of sale dated 16.10.1992 is genuine. In a case of U.N.Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. A.M.Krishnamurthy1 , the Apex Court held as follows: “24. Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars the relief of specific performance of a contract in favour of a person, who fails to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. In view of Explanation (i) to clause (c) of Section 16, it may not be essential for the plaintiff to actually tender money to the defendant or to deposit money in Court, except when so directed by the Court, to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of a contract, which involves payment of money. However, explanation (ii) says the plaintiff must aver performance or readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction. 25. To aver and prove readiness and willingness to perform an obligation to pay money, in terms of a contract, the plaintiff would have to make specific statements in the plaint and adduce evidence to show availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time. In other words, the plaintiff would have to plead that the plaintiff had sufficient funds or was in a position to raise funds in time to discharge his obligation under the contract. If the 1 2022 (4) ALT (SC) 77 (D.B.) VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 plaintiff does not have sufficient funds with him to discharge his obligations in terms of a contract, which requires payment of money, the plaintiff would have to specifically plead how the funds would be available to him. To cite an example, the plaintiff may aver and prove, by adducing evidence, an arrangement with a financier for disbursement of adequate funds for timely compliance with the terms and conditions of a contract involving payment of money.” In the case at hand, the plaintiff admitted there is no documentary evidence to show that he is ready to obtain the sale deed with balance sale consideration and asked the defendant No.1 to execute a sale deed. He further admits that the defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in the year 1993 and the defendant No.1 did not inform about the sale deed in the year 1993, when he met her, that she has sold away the property and he also did not verify at the Sub-Registrar office. He further admits that the defendant No.1 took away the old record from him on the pretext that she is selling land to others and also she would hand over the same at the time of registration. He further admits that he did not go through the written statement filed by the defendant No.3 and he learned that they have obtained a sale deed as he failed to obtain a sale deed within a reasonable time. He further admits that he obtained the registration extract of the sale deeds of the defendant Nos.2 to 6 and he knows the contents therein. He further admits that in all the sale deeds, the Ex.B-7 agreement of sale dated 10.12.1990, is referred. He further admits that the defendant No.1 informed about the purchase of the property by the defendant No.6 on 03.09.1992 i.e. prior to the Ex.A-2 agreement of sale. VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 The law is well settled that in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, the Court is required to pose into itself the following questions, namely: 1. Whether there is a valid agreement of sale binding on both the vendor and vendee? And 2. Whether the plaintiff has all along been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? It is well settled that “for relief of specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove that all along and till the final decision of the suit he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is the bounden duty of plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness by adducing evidence. This crucial facet has to be determined by considering all circumstances including availability of funds, and mere statement or averment in plaint of readiness and willingness would not suffice”. In the case at hand, there was a clear admission by the plaintiff that there is no documentary evidence to show that he is ready to obtain the sale deed with the balance sale consideration. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not issue any legal notice to the defendant No.1 within a period of three (03) months of time as prescribed by both the parties, showing readiness and willingness. After a lapse of 2 years and 11 months from the date of Ex.A-2, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant No.1 and the purchasers/defendant Nos.2 to 7. VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 In the case at hand, the plaintiff admitted that he remained silent for a period of 2 years and 11 months, though three (03) months time is stipulated in the Ex.A-2 agreement of sale to perform his part of the contract. When the parties have fixed a particular time for performing the contract, the same cannot be ignored. Furthermore, there is ample evidence on record to show that on knowing Ex.B-7 contract agreement dated 10.12.1990, by the defendant No.1 with the defendant No.6 in respect of the same property, the plaintiff had entered into a contract under Ex.A-2 on 16.10.1992. Therefore, Ex.B-7 prevails over Ex.A-2 agreement of sale. 19. In a case of Zarina Siddiqui Vs. A.Ramalingam2, the Apex Court held as follows: “In a case of Satya Jain Vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie , the Apex Court held as follows: 40. The discretion to direct specific performance of an agreement and that too after elapse of a long period of time, undoubtedly, has to be exercised on sound, reasonable, rational and acceptable principles. The parameters for the exercise of discretion vested by Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be entrapped within any precise expression of language and the contours thereof will always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The ultimate guiding test would be the principles of fairness and reasonableness as may be dictated by the peculiar facts of any given case, which features the experienced judicial mind can perceive without any real difficulty. It must however be emphasized that efflux of time and escalation of price of property, by itself, cannot be a valid ground to deny the relief of specific performance. Such a view has been consistently adopted by this Court. By way of illustration opinions rendered in P.S. Ranakrishna Reddy v. M.K. Bhagyalakshmi and more recently in Narinderjit Singh v. North Star Estate Promoters Ltd. may be usefully recapitulated. In a judgment dated 22.9.2014 in Civil Appeal No.9047 of 2014 entitled K.Prakash Vs. B.R.Sampath Kumar, this Court observed that: 17. The principles which can be enunciated is that where the plaintiff brings a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, the law insists a condition precedent to the grant of decree for specific performance that the plaintiff must show his continued readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract in accordance with its terms from the date of contract to the date of hearing. Normally, when the trial court exercises 2 Manu /SC/0975/2014 VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 its discretion in one way or other after appreciation of entire evidence and materials on record, the appellate court should not interfere unless it is established that the discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or against judicial principles. The appellate court should also not exercise its discretion against the grant of specific performance on extraneous considerations or sympathetic considerations. It is true, as contemplated under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, that a party is not entitled to get a decree for specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. Nevertheless once an agreement to sell is legal and validly proved and further requirements for getting such a decree is established then the Court has to exercise its discretion in favour of granting relief for specific performance.” In the case at hand, the plaintiff suppressed the real facts and approached the civil Court for seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. There is a evidence on record to show that after having full knowledge about Ex.B-7 agreement of sale in favour of the defendant No.6 by the defendant No.1 much prior to Ex.A-2 agreement, the plaintiff obtained Ex.A-2. In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that at the time of Ex.A-2, the defendant No.6 was also present, but, in the evidence, the plaintiff admits that the defendant No.6 was not present at the time of Ex.A-2. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in Shankerappa Vs. Sushilabai3. The facts in the aforesaid case law are different to the instant case. 21. Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance in P.Ramasubbamma Vs. V.Vijayalakshmi & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.2095 of 2022. The facts in the aforesaid case law are different to the instant case. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in Alagammal and Others Vs. Ganesan and Another4, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: 3 1984 AIR KAR 112 4 (2024) 3 SCC 232 VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 “33. Another important aspect that the Court is expected to consider is the fact that the appellant no.7 in whose favour there was a Sale Deed with regard to the suit premises, much prior to issuance of any Legal Notice and the institution of the suit in question and that no relief had been sought for cancellation of such Sale Deed, a suit for specific performance for execution of sale deed qua the very same property could not be maintained. The matter becomes worse for the respondents since such relief was also not sought even at the First Appeal stage nor at the Second Appeal stage, despite the law permitting and providing for such course of action. Even the Legal Notice dated 18.11.1997 has been issued after almost seven months from the alleged last payment of Rs.1.000/-, as claimed by the respondents to have been made on 21.04.1997.” 23. Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, allows for the enforcement of contracts’ specific performance against a subsequent purchaser, but this is an exception to the rule. This provision protects a bona fide purchaser, who has bought the property in good faith for valuable consideration and without prior notice of the original contract. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the defendant Nos.2 to 6 purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-6 and those sale deeds are preceded by Ex.B-7 agreement dated 10.12.1990. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 agreed to sell away the property for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and he paid an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. As stated supra, Ex.B-7 agreement prevails over Ex.A-2 agreement, and as noticed supra, the defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the bona fide purchasers, having regard to Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff could not be granted specific performance of contract as against the defendant Nos.2 to 6, who are the subsequent bona fide purchasers for value and without notice of Ex.A-2 alleged contract. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is not entitled to the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale VGKR, J. AS_1972_2003 under Ex.A-2 dated 16.10.1992. But, the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendant No.1 with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to the date of realization. Since the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 died and her Legal Representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.7 to 11, the respondent Nos.7 to 11 in the first appeal are liable to pay the said amount as ordered by this Court from out of the estate of defendant No.1/respondent No.1 which is in the hands of the respondent Nos.7 to 11 in the first appeal. 25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed against the respondent Nos.7 to 11 by granting alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to the date of realization and the respondent Nos.7 to 11 are liable to pay the same only from out of the estate of the deceased defendant No.1/respondent No.1 in the first appeal, which is in the hands of the respondent Nos.7 to 11 in the first appeal. The main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16.10.1992 as sought by the plaintiff is rejected. The appeal against the respondent Nos.2 to 6 is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the appeal suit. __________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. Date: 21.11.2025 SRT