JUDGMENT : 1. The defendant in OS No. 417 of 2011, on the files of the Principal Subordinate Court, Irinjalakuda, who is aggrieved by the decree and judgment in the above suit, has filed this appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in this suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant and respondent/plaintiff in detail. Perused the pleadings and evidence including the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the defendant. 3. For effective and easy discussion, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as ‘plaintiff’, and ‘defendant’ hereafter. 4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 4 lakh to the defendant. Accordingly, a written agreement was executed between them on 05.06.2010 and Rs. 3,60,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration. That apart, possession of the property also was handed over to the plaintiff in terms of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the TP Act'). Even though the plaintiff has been ready and willing to execute the sale deed by paying the remaining sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-, the defendant failed to do so. Consequently, a lawyer’s notice demanding execution of the sale deed was issued on 30.06.2011. Since the demand made in the notice was not heeded, the present suit seeking performance of the agreement has been filed. 5. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. It was contended that she neither executed any agreement nor received Rs.3,60,000/- as alleged. According to the defendant, she borrowed Rs. 4 lakh from the plaintiff on 17.03.2010, with an undertaking to repay the amount with interest @ 48% per annum. Accordingly, she executed a confidence sale (Viswasa Theeru) in respect of 47 cents of the property. Apart from that, she also gave blank stamp papers and two printed forms to the plaintiff. The further contention is that the defendant had paid interest @ 16,000/- per month regularly initially. But thereafter she could not pay the same since she had been laid up. 6. On scrutiny of the pleadings as above, the trial court raised necessary issues and tried the case. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A4 marked on the side of the plaintiff. But thereafter she could not pay the same since she had been laid up. 6. On scrutiny of the pleadings as above, the trial court raised necessary issues and tried the case. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A4 marked on the side of the plaintiff. DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. B1 to B8 were marked. After considering the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the trial court found that Ext. A1 sale agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Ultimately, in this case, where the property had been transferred after the payment of a significant portion of the agreed sale consideration, the court granted the discretionary relief of specific performance. 7. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, the defendant specifically denied the execution of Ext. A1 sale agreement, though she admitted receipt of Rs.4 lakh as a loan, with an undertaking to repay the amount along with interest @ 48% per annum. It is also pointed out that the property would fetch a higher value than stated in the agreement, which would support the defendant's case and raise doubts regarding the execution of Ext. A1 sale agreement. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, when the defendant was in need for money in connection with her treatment, she was forced to obtain money from the plaintiff after executing ‘confidence sale’ and the property never intended to be sold. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant that, in order to succeed a suit for specific performance on the basis of contract of sale, the vendee shall plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform the essentials of the terms of the contract, and otherwise such relief could not be granted. In this connection, the learned counsel placed the decision of this Court reported in 2024 KHC 71 Manicka Sachindranath v. Sankunni. In paragraph No. 21 this Court observed as under:- “21. When the vendee approaches a court seeking the relief of specific performance, the vendee shall plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform the essentials of the terms of the contract, which are to be performed by him. Once such specific plea raised and proved, grant of the relief is governed under S.20 of the Specific Relief Act”. 8 . Once such specific plea raised and proved, grant of the relief is governed under S.20 of the Specific Relief Act”. 8 . The learned counsel also placed the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ravindranath P. v. Sasikala, 2024 KHC 6379 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, the Act, 1963 provides certain checks and balances which must be fulfilled and established by the plaintiffs before they can become entitled for such a relief. The pleadings in a suit for specific performance have to be very direct, specific and accurate. A suit for specific performance based on bald and vague pleadings must necessarily be rejected. S.16(c) of the 1963 Act requires readiness and willingness to be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract. The said provision has been broadly interpreted and deemed mandatory, as referenced in the case of Manicka Sachindranath , cited above. 9. Repelling the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the defendant, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, in paragraph 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff specifically pleaded his readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration. The defendant's reluctance to execute the sale deed is the sole reason for its non-execution. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, in the present case, the execution of Ext. A1 sale agreement is proved by the evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 2. That apart possession of the property was transferred at the time of the execution of Ext. A1 sale agreement, and the defendant has since been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the plaintiff’s possession is safeguarded by Section 53A of the TP Act. In addition, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, after the decree was passed, the plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/- and executed the sale deed through the court process, on purchasing the stamp and incurred an expense of Rs. 2,65,000/- inclusive of the registration fee, as on 03.10.2015. This appeal has been filed only on 31.08.2016 after execution of the sale deed on 30.10.2011, at a belated stage, along with a delay petition seeking to condone the delay of 960 days in filing the appeal. 2,65,000/- inclusive of the registration fee, as on 03.10.2015. This appeal has been filed only on 31.08.2016 after execution of the sale deed on 30.10.2011, at a belated stage, along with a delay petition seeking to condone the delay of 960 days in filing the appeal. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, even though the delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted, the plaintiff already executed the decree, not only by paying the balance consideration but also by paying a gigantic amount towards stamp duty and registration fee. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff could not be interfered with since the same would cause further hardship to the plaintiff. 10. Addressing the contentions, the points arise for consideration are as follows:- 1. Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the plaintiff proved the execution of Ext. A1 sale agreement and the parting of possession of the plaint schedule property under Section 53A of the TP Act? 2. Whether the decree and judgment of the trial court would require interference? 3. Reliefs and costs? 11. In this matter, in order to prove Ext. A1 agreement, which is alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 05.06.2010, plaintiff himself filed chief affidavit and deposed as PW1 in accordance with the averments in the plaint. Even though PW1 was cross-examined, nothing was elicited to disbelieve his version regarding the execution of Ext. A1 sale agreement. That apart, PW2, the witness to Ext. A1, was also examined, and he supported the execution of Ext. A1. The contention raised by the defendant is that she had executed a ‘confidence’ sale with respect to the plaint schedule property to the defendant on 17.03.2010, when she borrowed Rs.4 lakh from the plaintiff, undertaking to repay the amount with interest @ 48% per annum. DW1 the defendant gave evidence in support of the said contention. During the cross-examination of PW1, she stated that she did not go to the Sub Registrar's office to register the ‘confidence sale’. 12. The other contention raised by the defendant is that, at the time of execution of the ‘confidence sale’, the plaintiff obtained blank stamp paper, blank printed forms, and one blank paper, and Ext. A1 was created by using the said papers. In fact, Ext. A1 does not contain any printed form. In Ext. 12. The other contention raised by the defendant is that, at the time of execution of the ‘confidence sale’, the plaintiff obtained blank stamp paper, blank printed forms, and one blank paper, and Ext. A1 was created by using the said papers. In fact, Ext. A1 does not contain any printed form. In Ext. A1, the defendant's mother, Mary, was also a signatory. She was examined as DW2. Even though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant that the property would fetch a higher value at the time of execution of the Ext. A1 sale agreement no such contention was raised in the written statement. Similarly, the defendant's claim that she was forced to execute the ‘confidence sale’ and to provide stamp paper, blank printed forms, and blank papers when she borrowed Rs.4 lakh for the immediate treatment of the defendant, this condition also not raised in the written statement. 13. Going by the evidence available, the case advanced by the plaintiff as regards to execution of Ext.A1 is proved, and the case of the defendant as regards to execution of ‘confidence sale’ is not proved. The defendant has not even produced a copy of the so-called ‘confidence sale’, which is admittedly executed by her. Thus the execution of Ext.A1 is proved, negating the contention of the defendant. 14. It is true that the relief of specific performance of a contract is discretionary, and the courts, while exercising the power to grant specific performance, need to be extra careful and cautious in dealing with the pleadings and evidence, led by the parties. In an appropriate case, the court has the discretion to grant discretionary relief, prior to 01.08.2018, before amendment of the Specific Relief Act. 15. In the instant case, on evaluation of the evidence available the trial court found that the plaintiff proved the execution of Ext.A1 sale agreement. That apart, it is admitted that the property is now in the possession of the defendant, thereby the defendant’s possession is protected under Section 53A of the TP Act. As far as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant regarding the higher market value of the property and the Rs.4 lakh obtained for the immediate treatment of the defendant are concerned, these two vital aspects not pleaded in the written statement. As far as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant regarding the higher market value of the property and the Rs.4 lakh obtained for the immediate treatment of the defendant are concerned, these two vital aspects not pleaded in the written statement. In the instant case, execution of Ext.A1 and receipt of Rs.3,60,000/- by the defendant is proved as against the contention raised by the defendant admitting borrowing Rs.4 lakh as a loan transaction. In such a case, the trial court rightly exercised its discretion, and by that time, the sale deed had also been executed, due to the defendant's laches in filing an appeal and getting stay in time to avoid execution. In such a case, there is no reason to interfere with the verdict of the trial court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to fail. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Since the sale deed has already been executed, there shall be no order as to costs.