JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1.1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.513 of 2007, dated 30.11.2018 on the file of III Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad challenging the rejection of specific performance. 1.2. The respondents-defendants have filed Cross Objection No.37 of 2019 under Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) challenging the very same judgment and decree in refunding the advance amount with interest. 2. Appellant is the plaintiff. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the defendants in OS No.513 of 2007. 3. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.2-defendant No.2 died and her LRs are brought on record as respondent Nos.3 to 5-defendant Nos.3 to 5. 4. During pendency of the Appeal, respondent No.3 died and his LRs are brought on record as respondent Nos.6 to 8. 5.1. Appellant-plaintiff has filed suit under Section 26 & Order 7, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) praying the Court to pass a judgment and decree in his favour against the respondents-defendants with a prayer for specific performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 13.04.2006 against the respondents- defendants by directing them to execute registered sale deed in his favour, in alternate direct the respondents-defendants to refund an amount of Rs.9 Lakhs and to pay compensation of Rs.9 Lakhs with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization. 5.2. It is stated in the plaint that respondent Nos.1 and 2- defendants are the absolute owners of the Ground Floor Mulgi, First floor and second floor bearing Municipal Nos.5-3-264, 5-3- 264/1 and 5-3-24/2 respectively together with an extent of 175.36 square yards out of total extent of 225.36 square yards situated at Goshamal, Hyderabad. Appellant-plaintiff is in occupation of Ground and First floor portions as tenant and paying rents regularly, respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants are not in a habit of issuing any receipts. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants have offered to sell the Ground floor Mulgi bearing No.5-3-264 and First Floor bearing Municipal No.5-3-264/1 and 5-3-264/2 along with undivided share in the land admeasuring 175.36 square yards out of 225.36 square yards. They have entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 13.04.2006 and the appellant-plaintiff has paid Rs.9 Lakhs towards part sale consideration under a receipt and agreed to pay the balance amount at the time of registration. They have entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 13.04.2006 and the appellant-plaintiff has paid Rs.9 Lakhs towards part sale consideration under a receipt and agreed to pay the balance amount at the time of registration. The total sale consideration fixed in the Agreement of Sale is Rs.19 Lakhs. The time fixed for completion of sale transaction is 10 months from the date of Agreement of Sale. Appellant-plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs within the time stipulated. On 11.02.2007, appellant-plaintiff approached the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants along with Mahender Agarwal by offering the balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs. But the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants requested some more time for execution of sale deed. Appellant-plaintiff constrained to address a letter, dated 11.02.2007 to respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants through registered post with acknowledgement due stating that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration and willing to perform his part of contract. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants failed to comply the conditions under the agreement and are taking steps to alienate the suit property to third parties and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for. 6.1. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has filed his written statement and contended that respondent No.2-defendant No.2 expired on 09.01.2008, they never offered to sell the property to the appellant-plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.19 Lakhs. The Ground Floor Mulgi was obtained by the appellant-plaintiff on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- in the month of October, 2003 and First Floor was obtained on lease in the month of May, 2001 on a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- and remaining portion of the First Floor was obtained in the month of March, 2003 on a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- excluding water and electricity charges which were to be borne by the appellant-plaintiff and the monthly rent payable by the appellant-plaintiff shall be enhanced by 5% every year. However, the appellant-plaintiff has not enhanced the rent since the inception of the lease. 6.2. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 kept quiet as the appellant- plaintiff was promising to pay the enhanced rent. In the year 2001, respondent No.1-defendant No.1 was in financial crisis as such requested the appellant-plaintiff to advance a sum of Rs.1 Lakh as loan. However, the appellant-plaintiff has not enhanced the rent since the inception of the lease. 6.2. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 kept quiet as the appellant- plaintiff was promising to pay the enhanced rent. In the year 2001, respondent No.1-defendant No.1 was in financial crisis as such requested the appellant-plaintiff to advance a sum of Rs.1 Lakh as loan. Accordingly, appellant-plaintiff advanced Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No.26887 dated 01.10.2001 and Rs.50,000/- through cheque No.53042, dated 21.12.2001, both drawn on Agrasen Co-operative Bank and respondent No.1-defendant No.1 was not in a position to repay the loan of Rs.1 Lakh as he is a non-practicing Advocate and has no source of income to maintain his family. 6.3. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 requested the appellant- plaintiff to deduct part of the rent towards loan, however, he was not deducting the amount and the appellant-plaintiff in the year 2006, all of a sudden started pestering the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants to repay the loan amount with abnormal rate of interest and also started threatening him and on 13.04.2006 forcibly made respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.1 and 2 to sign the alleged Agreement of Sale. The appellant-plaintiff has informed the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants that the said agreement is obtained by him for securing the repayment of the loan. The alleged payment of Rs.8 Lakhs in cash under the alleged Agreement of Sale, dated 13.04.2006 is neither paid by the appellant-plaintiff nor received by respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants. 6.4. Appellant-plaintiff has to explain and prove as to whether the said amount is paid in lumpsum or installments. The description and area of the suit schedule property is incorrect and that the appellant-plaintiff has no knowledge of the extent. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants have sold four Mulgis in the Ground floor along with undivided share in the land to third parties. The alleged Agreement of Sale, dated 13.04.2006 is obtained by the appellant- plaintiff under threat, coercion. Appellant-plaintiff has not paid the balance sale consideration as stipulated in the agreement in time and he is not entitled to seek specific performance and also not entitled for alternate relief. Further the stamp duty paid on the Agreement of Sale dated 13.04.2006 is insufficient and the appellant-plaintiff is liable to pay the same under Article 6 (B) of schedule 1(A) of the Stamp Act which is also compulsory registrable and prayed to dismiss the suit. 7. Further the stamp duty paid on the Agreement of Sale dated 13.04.2006 is insufficient and the appellant-plaintiff is liable to pay the same under Article 6 (B) of schedule 1(A) of the Stamp Act which is also compulsory registrable and prayed to dismiss the suit. 7. Respondent Nos.3 to 5-defendant Nos.3 to 5 have adopted the written statements filed by respondent No.1-defendant No.1. 8. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.04.2006 by directing the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed for? 2. Whether the defendants are directed to refund an amount of Rs.9 Lakhs and to pay compensation of Rs.9 Lakhs along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 9. Appellant-plaintiff is examined as PW.1, also examined PW.2-Arun Kumar Agarwal, PW.3-Mahender Kumar Agarwal, got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Respondent No.1 is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B7. 10. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties has dismissed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 13.04.2006 but alternatively directed the respondents-defendants to refund an amount of Rs.9 Lakhs after deducting 5% as per clause V(v) of the agreement (Rs.9,00,000/- - Rs.45,000/- = Rs.8,55,000/-) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. 11.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court failed to take into consideration the very fact that there was no plea in the written statement questioning the capacity of the appellant-plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration and unnecessarily went into the said aspect elaborately, misread the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and misquoted the judgment, misconstrued the aspect of time being essence of the contract with reference to Ex.A1-letter and gave undue importance to the date of dispatch of the letter. 11.2. The learned trial Court having held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants agreed to sell the schedule property under agreement of sale, gravely erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance, respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants totally denied the agreement of sale and its validity and the question of the appellant- plaintiff being ready or not is not a relevant consideration. The learned trial Court having held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants agreed to sell the schedule property under agreement of sale, gravely erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance, respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants totally denied the agreement of sale and its validity and the question of the appellant- plaintiff being ready or not is not a relevant consideration. The learned trial Court while answering issue No.II arrived at a conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff is entitled for refund of the amount paid under the Agreement of Sale with interest @ 6% per annum only. While answering issue No.III the learned trial Court also earned in deducting 5% of the amount already paid under the Agreement of Sale when it was the specific case of the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants that they never agreed to sell the suit property. 11.3. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that had there been any plea in the written statement challenging the financial capacity of the appellant-plaintiff and on framing proper issue, he would have adduced relevant evidence for want of proper pleading and the oral evidence of the appellant-plaintiff is not shaken in the cross-examination, also failed to take into consideration the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff and also failed to refer various legal precedents cited in spite of furnishing copies. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Silvey and Others Vs. Arun Varghese and another , (2008) 11 SCC 45 (2) Narinderjit Singh Vs. North Star Estate Promoters Ltd. , (2012) 5 SCC 712 (3) Basavaraj Vs. Padmavathi & Anr., (2023) 4 SCC 239 (4) Veeramareddy Nagabhushana Rao Vs. Jyothula Venkateswara Rao , 2010 SCC OnLine AP 931 (5) K.Bhudamma & Others Vs. Vidyadevi & Others , 2016 (2) ALT 543 (S.B.) (6) Daulatram Vyas (Died) per LRs Vs. Vallabha Vyas & 3 Others , 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 65 (7) Mogadati Ramatulasamma Vs. Nandru Nagendramma , 2025 SCC OnLine AP 9 and prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. 12.1. Learned counsel for the respondents-cross objectors submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court directing the defendants to refund Rs.8,55,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of suit till the date of realization is erroneous and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. 12.1. Learned counsel for the respondents-cross objectors submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court directing the defendants to refund Rs.8,55,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of suit till the date of realization is erroneous and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. The learned trial Court ought to have held that the appellant-plaintiff failed to prove the payment of Rs.8 Lakhs as stated in Ex.A3. A specific plea is taken by the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 in the written statement that the appellant-plaintiff has not paid the alleged sum of Rs.8 Lakhs by cash as part of advance sale consideration and also failed to consider the inconsistency and inadequacy in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding payment of part sale consideration of Rs.8 Lakhs by cash, the burden is not discharged by the appellant-plaintiff. 12.2. The learned trial Court while accepting Ex.A3-agreement of sale ignored the internal contradictions in the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 about the manner in which the agreement was entered into. The contradictions if properly assessed and considered would create a serious doubt about the due execution of the agreement and its terms and conditions, the learned trial Court having noted from the evidence of PW.1 that he has borrowed Rs.8 Lakhs from his brother and other relatives ought to have expected that the appellant-plaintiff has to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. PW.2 stated about the advancement of Rs.1,50,000/- as loan and the inconsistency therein ought to have been held that the appellant-plaintiff never paid the advance amount of Rs.8 Lakhs to respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.1 and 2. 12.3. The learned trial Court failed to see that the appellant- plaintiff failed to prove the contents of Ex.A3-agreement of sale and merely because DW.1 has admitted his signature on the agreement, the contents do not stand proved. The learned trial Court having noted that the appellant-plaintiff failed to produce Income Tax returns and Bank statement in proof of advance payment of Rs.8 Lakhs by cash ought to have rejected the contention of the appellant-plaintiff regarding payment of advance amount. Counsel to substantiate her contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Smt.Chand Rani (Dead) by LRs Vs. Smt.Kamal Rani (Dead) by LRs , AIR 1993 SC 1742 (2) Pushparani S.Sundaram and Ors. Vs. Pauline Manomani James (Deceased) and Ors. Counsel to substantiate her contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Smt.Chand Rani (Dead) by LRs Vs. Smt.Kamal Rani (Dead) by LRs , AIR 1993 SC 1742 (2) Pushparani S.Sundaram and Ors. Vs. Pauline Manomani James (Deceased) and Ors. , 2001 AIR SCW 2347 (3) A.K.Lakshmipathy (Dead) and others Vs. Rai Saheb Pannalal H.Lahoti Cahritable Trust and Others , 2009 (6) ALD 139 (SC) (4) Shenbagam and Others Vs. KK Rathinavel , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 71 (5) U.N.Krishna Murthy (since deceased) Thr. LRs Vs. A.M.Krishna Murthy, 2022 AIR SC 3361 (6) Nalamathu Venkaiya (died) by Lr Vs. B.S.Neelkanta and Anr., 2005 (5) ALD 767 (DB). 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and respondents- cross objectors have filed their written submissions in support of their contentions. 14. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 15. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the appellant-plaintiff has made out any case to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in OS.No.513 of 2007 dated 30.11.2018? 2. Whether the respondents-Cross Objectors have made out any case to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in OS.No.513 of 2007 dated 30.11.2018 in passing a decree to return an amount of Rs.8,55,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization, if so? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in OS.No.513 of 2007 dated 30.11.2018 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court? Point Nos.1 to 3: 16. Ex.A3 is the Agreement of Sale dated 13.04.2006 executed by respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of appellant-plaintiff. Clause IV, V (I, II (a) (b)), III to VI are important to adjudicate the Appeal which reads as under: IV. WHEREAS, the Vendee herein is already tenant of the Mulgi on ground floor and also the flats on the first floor in the schedule property. V. AND WHEREAS, the Vendors have offered to sell Ground floor Mulgi bearing Municipal No.5-3-264, and First floor bearing Municipal No.5-3-264/1 and 5-3-264/2, along with undivided share in the land admeasuring 175.36 sq. yards out of 225.36 sq. V. AND WHEREAS, the Vendors have offered to sell Ground floor Mulgi bearing Municipal No.5-3-264, and First floor bearing Municipal No.5-3-264/1 and 5-3-264/2, along with undivided share in the land admeasuring 175.36 sq. yards out of 225.36 sq. yards situated at Goshamahal, Hyderabad hereinafter referred to as the "Said Property" and more fully described in the schedule annexed hereto and the Vendee has consented to purchase the same on the following terms and conditions. i. The total sale consideration agreed between the parties is Rs. 19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) to be paid by the Vendee to the Vendors. ii. The part of sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) is paid to the Vendors by the Vendee in the following manner:- a. Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) vide cheque No.26887 dated: 03-10-2001, drawn on Agrasen Coop. Bank for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and under cheque No.53042, dt. 22.12.2001 for Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Agrasen Coop. Bank. b. Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) in cash. And that the Vendors have received the above said amount and acknowledge the receipt of the same. iii. The balance of sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) is to be paid at the time of registration. iv. The time is the essence of the contract. The time is fixed as 10 months for completion of this sale transaction from the date of execution of this agreement for sale. v. In case the Vendee fails to get the property registered within the stipulated time as agreed supra, 5% of the amount paid till then to the Vendors shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be refunded to the Vendee. vi. And similarly if the Vendors fail to register the sale in favour of the Vendee by some reason or the other, the Vendors shall compensate the Vendee by paying 5% extra amount to the Vendee of the amount paid till date. The execution of sale deed by vendors shall be only in favour of Vendee and non else. 17. As per Ex.A3, the time is fixed as 10 months for completion of the sale transaction from the date of execution of the agreement of sale (13.04.2006). Ex.A1 is the letter got issued by the appellant-plaintiff on his Letter Head which reads as under: Date 11-02-2007. To 1. Sri T.Dhan Singh s/o Late Sri Shanker Singh, Age 67 Years, Occ: Advocate. Ex.A1 is the letter got issued by the appellant-plaintiff on his Letter Head which reads as under: Date 11-02-2007. To 1. Sri T.Dhan Singh s/o Late Sri Shanker Singh, Age 67 Years, Occ: Advocate. 2. Smt.Susheela Bai, W/o.Sri T.Dhan Singh, aged about 60 Yrs. Occ: Household. Both are residents of 21-1-486, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad. This is to inform you that you both have entered into an agreement of sale dt.13th April 2006, with me in respect of Ground floor passage and mulgi bearing Municipal No.5-3-264, and Upper floors bearing Municipal No.5-3-264/1 and 5-3-264/2, along with divided and undivided share in the land admeasuring 175.36 sq.yards out of 225.36 sq.yards situated at Goshamahal, Hyderabad and in this agreement the time will expire on 13-2-2007. That I am ready to get register the said property in my name and the remaining balance sale consideration amount is ready. That I hereby call upon you to come and collect the remaining balance amount and get register the said property in my name. Yours sincerely, Sd/- 11.02.2007 (VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL) 18. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as it stood at the material time inter alia, provides:- 16. Personal bars to relief.-Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person- (a) who would not be entitled to recover compensation for its breach; or (b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or (c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. Explanation. -For the purposes of clause (c), - (i) Where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the Court; (ii) The plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction”. 19.1. 19.1. Suit in OS.No.513 of 2007 for specific performance of contract is filed by the appellant-plaintiff on 05.09.2007 and is numbered on 21.09.2007. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 along with his three sons has filed suit for possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits against the appellant-plaintiff on 11.04.2008 and the same is numbered on 19.06.2008 vide OS.No.497 of 2008. Copy of the plaint in OS.No.513 of 2007 is marked as Ex.A1 in Ex.B7 judgment and decree in OS.No.497 of 2008. It is the case of the appellant-plaintiff who is the defendant in OS.No.497 of 2008 that there are no arrears of rent and from April, 2008, plaintiff No.1 therein (respondent No.1 herein) refused to receive the rents. Therefore, the same were sent through Money Order and the same were received. In Ex.B7 it is observed in the judgment that “in other words if really defendant (appellant herein) has purchased the property under Agreement of Sale in April, 2006, but he did not state in his evidence that he has paid rent and he need not pay the rent in view of the Agreement of Sale”. 19.2. The suit filed by respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 for eviction of the appellant-plaintiff from the suit schedule premises is decreed directing him to vacate the premises within 3 months from the date of judgment (03.06.2014) failing which the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 herein) are at liberty to get the property under due process of law. In so far as payment of rent is concerned, it is observed that defendant (appellant herein) has committed default in payment of rent from 2006 till November, 2007 which comes to an amount of Rs.2,07,000/- for 23 months and in so far as mesne profits is concerned, the Court has directed the plaintiffs therein (respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 herein) to file separate proceedings under Order 20, Rule 12 of CPC for mesne profits. 20. It is stated in the written submissions filed by the respondents-defendants that Ex.B7 judgment and decree in OS.No.497 of 2008 dated 03.06.2014 is challenged by the appellant-plaintiff by filing the Appeal in XVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide AS.No.292 of 2014 which also came to be dismissed and the Second Appeal filed by the appellant-defendant vide AS.No.453 of 2023 was also dismissed on 25.01.2024 and E.P. Proceedings were executed, appellant-plaintiff vacated the subject premises in the year 2024. 21.1. 21.1. The evidence of the appellant-plaintiff is the same with that of his plaint averments. In his cross-examination he stated that he do not remember the Bank balance in his account in the year 2006, today (25.10.2017) his Bank balance is Rs.45,000/- and the stamp paper under Ex.A3 is purchased by him. The contents and draft is prepared by Sri Sharad Sanghi. The postal receipt on Ex.A1 shows the date as 13.02.2007. Mukesh Agarwal is his younger brother and he had negotiated to purchase the suit property in the year 2006, he has given hand loan of Rs.1 Lakh to the defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2) in the year 2001 which is shown in Ex.A3 and the agreement covered under Ex.A3 is pertaining to the loan amount given in 2001, he has not charged any interest on the hand loan of Rs.1 Lakh. He paid an amount of Rs.8 Lakhs on the date of Agreement of Sale, dated 13.04.2006 (Ex.A3) and has not drawn any amount from the Bank account, he had some cash with him and has borrowed some amount from his brother and other relatives, the amount of Rs.8 Lakhs is paid in hundred denominations and has not taken separate receipt for payment of Rs.8 Lakhs as defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) stated that agreement itself is a receipt. Ex.A1 is posted by him on 13.02.2007 and it is issued one day after 10 months of the agreement period. Witness adds that there is one day holiday and on the second day, by the time he approached the post office, it was closed. Mahender Agarwal is his friend who is also known to defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) and he has not filed any document to show that he had cash for payment of balance sale consideration since the date of suit. 21.2. Appellant-plaintiff denied the suggestion that he has not verified the market value of the suit property at the time of agreement and he do not know whether the market value of the suit property was more than Rs.19 Lakhs. He also denied the suggestion that he has not paid Rs.8 Lakhs to the defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) nor made any written request for execution of sale deed and there is no mention of date of payment of Rs.8 Lakhs in Ex.A3. He also denied the suggestion that he has not paid Rs.8 Lakhs to the defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) nor made any written request for execution of sale deed and there is no mention of date of payment of Rs.8 Lakhs in Ex.A3. He denied the suggestion that he filed a false case against the defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) and he is not entitled for specific performance or refund of amount as prayed for. 22.1. PW2 - Arun Kumar Agarwal is the younger brother of the appellant-plaintiff, he deposed that Agreement of Sale, dated 13.04.2006 was executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) on 13.04.2006 in his presence and also in the presence of Ravinder Singh (respondent No.4 herein). Himself and Ravinder Singh signed on the Agreement of Sale as witnesses after the appellant-plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) signed on the Agreement. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) offered to sell the suit schedule property to the appellant-plaintiff and the appellant-plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.8 Lakhs by cash on the date of Agreement of Sale to defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) in his presence and an amount of Rs.1 Lakh was already paid earlier through cheques. The balance amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was agreed to be paid at the time of registration. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 signed the Agreement of Sale voluntarily on receipt of Rs.8 Lakhs. The appellant-plaintiff has arranged the balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs and approached the defendants to execute registered sale deed on 11.02.2007 along with Mahender Agarwal and informed them that the balance amount of Rs.10 Lakhs is ready, even otherwise appellant-plaintiff was ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.10 Lakhs at all times till date, recently he came to know that the defendants (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) are offering to sell the property. 22.2. 22.2. In his cross-examination he stated that he has not perfectly read Ex.A3 but it was executed in the year 2006 and he do not remember the date and month, he is not aware of the negotiations between the appellant-plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.1 and 2 with respect to the suit schedule property and he identified his signature in Ex.A3 in witness column No.1, his brother plaintiff requested him to sign as a witness and he do not know who has purchased the stamp paper, where it was drafted and typed. So also he do not know the contents of the Agreement of Sale. Witness adds that agreement was executed for sale of suit property. Plaintiff has approached the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 11.02.2007 along with his friend Mahender Agarwal. He do not remember the month and date of paying cash of Rs.8 Lakhs to defendant Nos.1 and 2 but it was in 2006. The said amount of Rs.8 Lakhs was paid at the request of defendant Nos.1 and 2 at Rikabgunj. Himself and plaintiff went to the house of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the cash of Rs.8 Lakhs was not drawn from the Bank. The plaintiff has borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from him and some amounts are borrowed from other relatives. He cannot say the date of agreement whether it was a working day or a holiday and they went to the house of the defendants in the afternoon at around 3.00 P.M., the amount of Rs.8 Lakhs was given in 100 denominations and they carried the amount in a cloth bag. PW.2 denied the suggestion that plaintiff has not paid cash of Rs.8 Lakhs on the date of agreement and that he is giving false evidence. 23.1. PW.3 - Mahender Kumar Agrawal deposed that plaintiff is a good friend to him since 2005 and he is aware that the plaintiff entered into Agreement of Sale, dated 13.04.2006 with defendant Nos.1 and 2 for purchasing the suit schedule property, in that connection the plaintiff came to him in the month of February, 2007 requested to accompany him to visit the house of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as they were postponing the execution of sale deed though the plaintiff is ready with balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs. On the request of the plaintiff, he accompanied him to the house of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 11.02.2007 and informed them that the plaintiff is ready with the balance sale consideration and requested to execute registered sale deed. But the defendant Nos.1 and 2 expressed that there are some disputes among their family members and they will resolve the same then they will execute the sale deed, requested more time. Thereafter, he came to know that defendants have not come forward to execute the sale deed and the plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance and he knows very well that the plaintiff has capacity to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs as he was ready with the amount by 11.02.2007. 23.2. In his cross examination he stated that he knows the plaintiff since 2015 through a common friend, between 2005 he has no acquaintance with him. To his knowledge, the plaintiff is in the business of lots, purchase and sale of goods and the plaintiff was financially sound, he is a witness to Ex.A3. Himself and plaintiff went to the house of defendant No.1 on 04.02.2007 to request him to conclude the agreement and no other persons have accompanied them. On 11.02.2007, they went to the house of defendant No.1 after lunch and they did not met defendant Nos.2 to 6. He has met defendant No.1 couple of times that is at the time of agreement and subsequently. On 11.02.2007, himself and the plaintiff have gone to the house of defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) along with balance sale consideration in cash and he cannot say the denomination. The witness has identified the photo of defendant No.1 which is marked as Ex.B1. PW.3 denied the suggestion that he did not visit the house of defendant No.1 on 11.02.2007 and that he is giving false evidence. 24.1. The evidence of respondent No.1-DW.1 is the replica of his written statement. 24.2. In his cross-examination he stated that signatures appearing in all the papers of Ex.A3 belongs to him and his wife and they have executed Ex.A3 at their house, during that time himself and his wife alone were present along with the plaintiff. Witness adds that the same is executed under coercion, threatened force and he has not lodged any complaint or taken action against the plaintiff. Witness adds that the same is executed under coercion, threatened force and he has not lodged any complaint or taken action against the plaintiff. He did not issue any reply to Ex.A1- Letter dated 11.02.2007 even after receiving the same, he has not lodged any complaint against the plaintiff till date (13.07.2008). His son Ravinder Singh and PW.2 were present at the time of execution of Ex.A3 and it is only after receipt of summons in the suit he has initiated action against the plaintiff for eviction and arrears of rent and according to him under Ex.A3 he intended to sell only Ground Floor Mulgi and First Floor residential portion. He has signed Ex.A3-Agreement of Sale only after going through the contents and he is aware that the total sale consideration is Rs.19 Lakhs, it is also mentioned in Ex.A3 that he has received Rs.8 Lakhs by way of cash. Witness adds that he has not received any amount. He has not taken any steps to comply with the obligations under Ex.A3 and they are not intending to sell their suit schedule property to anyone, he practised as an Advocate from 1961 to 1973. He do not have anything to show that he requested the plaintiff to deduct the loan amount from the rents but his request is oral. He has received Rs.1 Lakh cash from the plaintiff which is not repaid till date (13.07.2018). It is true after striking of the said portion in column No.V(vi) at page 3 of Ex.A3, himself and the plaintiff have attested the same and the written portion of the said clause is not agreeable for him. Thereby it is stuck off and attested by both of them. 24.3. DW.1 denied the suggestion that they have not stated either in the written statement or in the affidavit that the plaintiff has no capacity to pay the balance sale consideration under Ex.A3 and having aware of the capacity he has executed agreement under Ex.A3. He also denied the suggestion that plaintiff paid Rs.8 Lakhs by cash under Ex.A3 and himself along with PW.3 approached him on 11.02.2007 requested to execute registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration and also denied that the plaintiff has approached him on several occasions prior to 11.02.2007 requesting him to execute registered sale deed. He also denied the suggestion that plaintiff paid Rs.8 Lakhs by cash under Ex.A3 and himself along with PW.3 approached him on 11.02.2007 requested to execute registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration and also denied that the plaintiff has approached him on several occasions prior to 11.02.2007 requesting him to execute registered sale deed. DW.1 denied the suggestion that plaintiff was ready to perform his obligation under Ex.A3 and that they have executed Ex.A3 voluntarily on receiving the part sale consideration. There is no tampering of postal receipt. He also denied the suggestion that plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract. 25.1. The conduct of the defendant cannot be ignored while weighing the question of exercise of discretion for decreeing or denying a decree for specific performance : See Silvey, (2008) 11 SCC 45 . 25.2. “Escalation in the price of the land cannot, by itself, be a ground for denying relief of specific performance: See Narinderjit Singh, (2012) 5 SCC 712 . 25.3. Suit for specific performance of contract, readiness and willingness, accounts and non production. Unless the plaintiff was called upon to produce pass book either by defendant or, the court orders him to do so, no adverse inference can be drawn for the same : See Basavaraj, (2023) 4 SCC 239 . 25.4. Once the defendant has failed to prove that the suit agreement of sale is fabricated, all other defences taken by him such as readiness and willingness of the plaintiff and there is no requirement of selling the suit schedule property are all being supplementary, based on which, equitable relief of decreeing the suit cannot be refused to the plaintiff when it is otherwise legal and justified to do so : See Veeramareddy Nagabhushana Rao, 2010 SCC OnLine AP 931. 25.5. Mere attestation of a document is not a proof of the attestor knowing its contents and giving his consent to it : See K.Bhudamma and Others, 2016 (2) ALT 543 (S.B.). 25.6. Oral evidence to prove the nominal nature of a particular part of the deed cannot be entertained : See Daulatram Vyas, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 65. 25.7. Once it is accepted that the Ex.A.1 sale agreement is true and its contents are proved, it follows that the consideration has passed and that the case of the Plaintiff stands proved in all respects. 25.7. Once it is accepted that the Ex.A.1 sale agreement is true and its contents are proved, it follows that the consideration has passed and that the case of the Plaintiff stands proved in all respects. Thus, on an overall consideration of the facts and evidence in juxtaposition, an inevitable and safe conclusion can be reached that the Plaintiff discharged the legal burden as well and, therefore, it can safely be held that the suit sale agreement is true, valid and binding and is supported by consideration”: See Mogadati Ramtulasamma, 2025 SCC OnLine AP 9. Decisions cited by Respondent’s counsel: 26.1. In the case of sale of immovable property there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract the Court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the conditions are (1) From the express terms of the contract, (2) From the nature of the property, and (3) From the surrounding circumstances, for example : the object of making the contract”: See Smt.Chand Rani 8 26.2. In Pushparani S.Sundaram9, the Supreme Court held that there being a plea that “they were ready and willing to perform their part of contract is there in the pleading, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellants were ready and willing in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, this requires not only such plea but also proof of the same”. 26.3. It is well settled that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, it has to be proved that the plaintiff who is seeking for a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale must always be ready and willing to, complete the terms of the agreement for sale and that he has not abandoned the contract and his intention is to keep the contract subsisting till it is executed : See A. K. Lakshmipathy, 2009 (6) ALD 139 (SC) 26.4. In deciding whether to grant the remedy of specific performance, specifically in suits relating to sale of immovable property, the courts must be cognizant of the conduct of the parties, the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree. In deciding whether to grant the remedy of specific performance, specifically in suits relating to sale of immovable property, the courts must be cognizant of the conduct of the parties, the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree. The remedy provided must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at fault : See Shenbagam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 71. 26.5. The respondent plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness to perform his part of contract from the date of execution of the agreement till date of decree, which is a condition precedent for grant of relief of specific performance : See U.N. Krishnamurthy, 2022 AIR SC 3361. 26.6. Except making a plea in the plaint, the appellant has utterly failed to prove his readiness and willingness and that he has also not deposited at least the first installment of Rs.32.00 lakhs as agreed to be paid by the end of June 1994 even at the time of filing of the suit to seek the discretionary relief of Specific Performance, though he deposited an amount of Rs.32.00 lakhs only at the instance of the orders of the Court which cannot be taken as a material by the Court below to come to a conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract : See Nalamathu Venkaiya, 2005 (5) ALD 767 (DB). 27.1. It is the specific case of the appellant-plaintiff that he approached respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants on 11.02.2007 along with Mahender Agarwal offering the balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs with a request to execute the registered sale deed. The said fact is also deposed by PW.2 who is the brother of the appellant-plaintiff and the evidence in chief of PW.3 - Mahender Kumar Agarwal is also the same. PW.3 in his cross-examination stated that he knows the appellant-plaintiff since 2015, between 2005 he has no acquaintance with him. This admission itself goes against the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he visited the house of respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay the balance sale consideration on 11.02.2007. PW.3 in his cross-examination stated that he knows the appellant-plaintiff since 2015, between 2005 he has no acquaintance with him. This admission itself goes against the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he visited the house of respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay the balance sale consideration on 11.02.2007. Even otherwise, Ex.A1 letter dated 11.02.2007 does not refer the name of PW.3 except stating that he was ready to get the property registered in his name and the balance sale consideration amount is ready, except making the said statement there is no other evidence on record to show that appellant- plaintiff was ready to perform his part of contract. 27.2. (i) The contention of the appellant counsel in the Synopsis at III (C) that the Readiness and Willingness assumes significance only when the existence and execution of the Agreement is admitted, but where the defendant himself disowns the Agreement and disputes its very foundation, he cannot, in the same breath, raise a contention that the plaintiff (appellant herein) has failed to establish readiness and willingness to perform the contract. (ii) It is stated in Synopsis at III (D) that readiness and willingness does not fall for consideration in the facts of the case and findings of the trial Court is erroneous. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 speaks for itself about the personal bars to relief of specific performance, hence contention of the appellant-plaintiff counsel is negatived. 27.3. Though there are no pleadings by the respondent No.1- defendant No.1 in the written statement about the escalation of the price, but it is stated therein that they never agreed to sell the property for sale consideration of Rs.19,00,000/- and they sold four mulgis in the ground floor along with undivided share in the land and the remaining land is much less than 175.36 Square yards. As per Ex.B5, 26 Sq.yards is sold for Rs.2,50,000/- in May, 1996 and similar extent is sold for Rs.2,50,000/- in January, 1997 under Ex.B6 to third parties by way of registered sale deed by the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 and his wife, the learned trial Court has taken judicial notice of the same. 28. Appellant-plaintiff admitted in his cross examination that Ex.A1 letter is dispatched on 13.02.2007. As per Exs.A3, 10 months period completes on 13.02.2007. As stated supra, admission of PW.3 goes against the case of the appellant- plaintiff. 28. Appellant-plaintiff admitted in his cross examination that Ex.A1 letter is dispatched on 13.02.2007. As per Exs.A3, 10 months period completes on 13.02.2007. As stated supra, admission of PW.3 goes against the case of the appellant- plaintiff. The learned trial Court has rightly answered issue No.1 against the appellant-plaintiff and held that he is not entitled for specific performance of contract. 29. Learned counsel for respondents-defendants contended that appellant-plaintiff has not proved the payment of Rs.8 Lakhs. Hence, Issue No.2 of the judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. 30. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 is not a layman, he practised as an Advocate from 1961 to 1973, the admissions made by him in the cross-examination goes to show that he and his wife have signed on Ex.A3 after going through the contents therein. It is apt to note here that the defence of respondent Nos.1-defendant Nos.1 in the written statement is that Ex.A3 is executed under threat and coercion. If really the appellant- plaintiff has obtained the Agreement of Sale dated 13.04.2006 (Ex.A3) under threat and coercion definitely the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 being an Advocate would have responded spontaneously and would have taken action immediately either by issuing a legal notice or by lodging a complaint. It is to be noted here that respondent No.1 has received Ex.A1 letter dated 11.02.2007 after 13.02.2007 and in spite of it he kept silent and has not taken any action against the appellant-plaintiff. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has admitted that Column V(vi) of Ex.A3 was stuck down and initials were made. The admission made by respondent No.1-defendant No.1 in his cross- examination supports the case of the appellant-plaintiff that PW.2 and Ravinder Singh (son of respondent No.1-defendant No.1) were present at the time of execution of Ex.A3-Agreement of Sale dated 13.04.2006 which goes to show that amount of Rs.8 Lakhs is paid in cash and Rs.1 Lakhs was paid by way of cheque in the year 2011. 31. The admissions made by respondent No.1-DW.1 in his cross-examination is sufficient to come to a conclusion that he has received Rs.1 Lakh in the form of cheque and Rs.8 Lakhs in the form of cash. 32. 31. The admissions made by respondent No.1-DW.1 in his cross-examination is sufficient to come to a conclusion that he has received Rs.1 Lakh in the form of cheque and Rs.8 Lakhs in the form of cash. 32. If really the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has not received the cash of Rs.8 Lakhs on the date of Ex.A3 (13.04.2006) definitely he would have examined his son by name Ravinder Singh who was very much present on the date of agreement of sale. 33. Furthermore, the evidence of PW.2 supports the case of the appellant-plaintiff in respect of payment of cash and the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 admitted that his son – Ravinder Singh was also present who attested Ex.A3 document with that of PW.2. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 is an Advocate by profession, he signed the documents after verifying the contents in Ex.A3. This Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the judgment directing the defendants (respondents herein) for refund of amount of Rs.9 Lakhs and also rightly deducted 5% as per clause 5 of agreement of sale, dated 13.04.2006 (Ex.A3). 34. The decisions cited by the appellant counsel are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply to the case on hand. 35. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt.Chand Rani, AIR 1993 SC 1742 ; Pushparani S.Sundaram, 2001 AIR SCW 2347; A.K.Lakshmipathy, 2009 (6) ALD 139 (SC) Shenbagam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 71; U.N.Krishna Murthy, 2022 AIR SC 3361 and N.Venkaiya, 2005 (5) ALD 767 (DB) are applicable to the case on hand. 36. Appellant-plaintiff failed to prove that judgment of the learned trial Court suffers from perversity and illegality. So also the respondents-defendants-cross objectors also failed to make out any case that issue No.2 has to be set aside i.e., with regard to refund of amount. The admission made by respondent No.1- defendant No.1-DW.1 is sufficient that he has received the amount from the appellant-plaintiff under Ex.A3. There are no merits in the Appeal and also in cross objection and the same are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Hence points are answered accordingly. 37. In the result, Appeal and Cross objections are dismissed, parties to bear their own costs. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s stands closed.