2019 INSC 0704 NON­REPORTABLE                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION     CIVIL APPEAL NOS.    6449    OF 2019    (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.31787 of 2018) Abdullakoya Haji & Ors.                .…Appellant(s) Versus Rubis Tharayil & Anr.           ….  Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J.                 Leave granted.      2.   The appellants herein were the defendants in the suit bearing OS No.89 of 2008.  The suit in question was filed by   the   respondents   herein   seeking   for   a   judgment   and decree for  specific performance of the agreement  for  sale dated 26.03.2007.   The Trial Court on having considered the   matter   has   decreed   the   suit   in   part   by   its   judgment Page 1 of 29 dated   23.12.2010.     Through   the   said   judgment,   the decree   for   specific   performance   was   declined   and   the alternate   relief   directing   the   appellant   herein   to   pay   the sum of Rs. 75 Lakhs with interest at 9% per annum was granted.     The   plaintiffs   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by   the same   had   preferred   the   appeal   under   Section   96   of   the Civil   Procedure   Code   before   the   High   Court   of   Kerala   at Ernakulam in RFA No. 344 of 2011.   The Division Bench of   the   High   Court   through   its   judgment   dated 21.08.2018,   set   aside   the   judgment   passed   by   the   trial court and has allowed the appeal.  3.   The   appellants   herein   have   accordingly   been directed   to   execute   the   sale   deed   in   favour   of   the Respondent   No.   1   herein,   conveying   the   properties described   in   Item   Nos.   1,   2,   &   5   on   the   balance   sale consideration   being   deposited   within   the   period   of   two months.     In   respect   of   the   properties   described   in   Item Nos.   3   &   4,   the   same   was   not   included   in   the   judgment since   the   said   properties   involved   the   minor’s   interest. The   defendants   in   the   suit,   who   are   the   respondents   in Page 2 of 29 the appeal before the High Court are therefore before this Court   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   dated 21.08.2018   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   RFA   No.344   of 2011.   Thus, on the divergent conclusion reached by the two Courts, consideration is required in this appeal. 4. For the sake of convenience and clarity the parties would   be   referred   to   in   the   same   rank   as   assigned   to them in the original suit wherein the respondents herein were   the   plaintiffs   and   the   appellants   herein   were   the defendants.   5. The   brief   facts   necessary   to   be   noted   for   the consideration of this appeal is that the defendants are the owners   of   the   different   item   of   properties   which   are described   in   the   schedule   to   the   suit   subject   agreement dated   26.03.2007.     The   total   extent   of   property   was indicated in the agreement as  12.775  acres. The plaintiffs agreed to purchase the said land at the rate of Rs. 11,350 per   cent   of   land.     In   that   regard   the   agreement   dated 26.03.2007   was   entered   into   and   an   advance   of   Rs.   75 lakhs   was   paid   by   the   first   plaintiff   to   the   defendants. Page 3 of 29 The plaintiffs agreed to make a further payment of Rs. 75 lakhs   on   or   before   15.10.2007   and   before   such   time   the actual   measurement   of   the   property   was   required   to   be made   so   as   to   determine   the   actual   sale   consideration payable and to complete the sale transaction.   6. According   to   the   plaintiffs,   they   were   ready   and willing   to   pay   the   balance   and   secure   completion   of   the transaction.   In   that   regard   the   plaintiffs   claim   that   they had   also   kept   ready   the   sum   of   Rs.   75   lakhs   which   was agreed to be paid on or before 15.10.2007.  The plaintiffs contend   that   defendants   did   not   make   available   all   the documents   necessary   for   executing   the   sale   deed.     They therefore contend that the said position was accepted by the   defendants   and   an   appropriate   endorsement   was made   at   the   foot   of   the   agreement   and   the   defendants had   conceded   that   the   amount   payable   on   15.10.2007 can   be   paid   on   the   date   of   the   conveyance   and   that   the documents will be satisfied prior to this date.   The outer limit   for   completion   of   the   transaction   was   fixed   as 22.01.2008.  The further contention of the plaintiff is that Page 4 of 29 despite they being ready and willing, since the defendant did   not   come   forward   to   complete   the   transaction,   they were constrained to file this suit. 7. The defendant on being served with summons had appeared   and   filed   their   written   statement.     The execution of the agreement, the receipt of the sum of Rs. 75   lakhs   as   also   the   manner   in   which   the   balance amount   was   to   be   paid   and   the   transaction   was   to   be completed was not disputed.   However, it was contended that   the   plaintiffs   did   not   possess   the   funds   for   paying the   balance   of   the   sale   consideration   and   in   such   event the   completion   of   the   transaction   did   not   arise.     It   was accordingly   contended   that   the   plaintiffs   were   not   ready and   willing   to   complete   the   transaction.     It   was   alleged therein   that   since   the   plaintiffs   did   not   have   sufficient funds, they had entered into an agreement with regard to the   same   properties   with   one   Shri   Ali   Khan   without involving the defendants but neither the plaintiffs nor the said Shri Ali Khan had the funds to pay and complete the transaction. Page 5 of 29 8. The   Trial   Court,   in   the   light   of   the   rival   pleadings had framed five issues for its consideration which read as hereunder: “(i)  Whether   the   suit   is   bad  for   misjoinder  of causes of action and parties? (ii) Whether   the   first   plaintiff   was   ready   and willing   to   perform   their   part   of   the contract? (iii)  Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to get a   decree   for   specific   performance   of   the contract? (iv) Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for realization of Rs. 75,00,000/­ (Seventy­five   lakhs)   together   with   18% interest   per   annum   as   an   alternative relief? (v) Reliefs and costs?” In order to discharge the burden cast by the said issues, the second plaintiff examined himself as PW­1 and relied upon   the   documents   at   Exhibits   A1   to   A13.     The   first defendant   examined   himself   as   DW­1   and   examined   a witness   i.e.,   the   said   Shri   Ali   Khan   as   DW­2   and   relied upon the documents at Exhibit B1 to B25.  The report of the   Court   Commissioner   was   marked   as   Exhibit   C1   and C1(a).     The   subsequent   agreement   between   the   plaintiffs and Shri Ali Khan was marked as Exhibit X1. Page 6 of 29 9. The evidence as tendered by the parties was taken note by  the Trial Court and concluded that the plaintiffs were   not   ready   and   willing   to   perform   their   part   of   the obligation   under   the   agreement   and   therefore   has dismissed   the   suit.     The   High   Court   on   the   other   hand has   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   the   plaintiffs   were ready   and   willing   to   perform   their   part   of   the   agreement and that they had also possessed sufficient funds to pay the   remaining   sale   consideration   and   therefore   decreed the suit.  In that background, though on the other issues framed by the Trial Court there is no serious dispute for consideration, the issue which arises for consideration is as   framed   at   Issue   No.   2   relating   to   the   readiness   and willingness of the plaintiffs. 10. That   being   the   position,   we   have   heard   Shri Jayanth   Muth   Raj,   learned   Senior   Advocate   for   the appellants­defendants,   Shri   R.N.   Ravindran,   learned Senior  Advocate for  the respondent­plaintiff and perused the appeal papers. Page 7 of 29 11. In   that   background,   in   so   far   as   the   execution   of the agreement dated 26.03.2007 and the payment of the advance   amounting   to   Rs.   75   lakhs,   there   is   no   serious dispute.     The   requirement   under   the   agreement   was   for the plaintiffs to  pay  a further  sum  of Rs. 75 lakhs on or before   15.10.2007.   Apart   from   the   endorsement   dated 14.10.2007   sought   to   be   relied   on   by   the   plaintiffs   to contend that they had arranged the funds for payment of Rs.   75   lakhs   but   had   not   paid   the   same   since   the defendants  had   not  furnished   the  proper   title  deeds,   the plaintiffs   have   also   sought   to   rely   on   the   documents   at Exhibit   A5   to   A13.     In   that   regard   the   documents   at Exhibit A5 and A10 is the same.  The second plaintiff has examined   himself   as   PW­1,   who   by   referring   to   the   said documents   has   secured   the   marking   of   the   same   as exhibits.       The   marking   of   the   document   at   Exhibit   A9 was objected to by the defendants.   12. In that background, in so far as the payment of the advance amount of Rs. 75 lakhs though appears to be a substantial   sum,   the   readiness   and   willingness   of   the Page 8 of 29 plaintiffs   with   the   balance   sale   consideration   is   to   be taken   note   keeping   in   view   that   the   balance   sale consideration   payable   was   also   substantial.     The   second plaintiff   examined   himself   as   PW­1   by   filing   his   affidavit through which he has reiterated the plaint averments.  In respect of the payment of the balance sale consideration; the   contention   on   behalf   of   the   plaintiff   was   that   the further   amount   of   Rs.   75   lakhs   was   to   be   paid   on   or before   15.10.2007   subject   to   the   defendants   furnishing all   documents   relating   to   title   and   in   that   regard   the contention   was   also   that   in   respect   of   the   properties owned   by   Late   Beena,     her   legal   heirs   being   minors appropriate   conveyance   was   required   to   be   made   after completing the formalities.   It is no doubt true in the sale agreement   dated   26.03.2007   an   endorsement   was   made that   the   amount   payable   on   15.10.2017   can   be   paid   on the   date   of   conveyance   and   the   documents   shall   be satisfied   prior   to   the   same.     In   view   of   the   said endorsement   the   plaintiff   has   sought   to   contend   that though   the   amount   of   Rs.   75   lakhs   was   ready   as   on 15.10.2017,   the   same   was   not   paid   since   all   the Page 9 of 29 documents were not made available.  In so far as the said endorsement,   the   defendants   had   contended   that   the same was secured by misrepresentation.  13.   Be   that   as   it   may,   as   rightly   pointed   out   by   the learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   for   the   defendants, the   depiction   in   the   said   endorsement   about   the production   of   the   title   deeds   does   not   reflect   the   true state   of   affairs   in   as   much   as   PW­1   in   his   cross­ examination   has   admitted   that   prior   to   the   execution   of the   agreement,   the   copies   of   the   title   deeds   produced before   the   Court   were   shown   to   him   and   that   he   had entered   into   the   agreement   on   being   satisfied   that   the defendants have ownership and title to the suit property. Though  the  issue  relating   to  the  transfer   of  the  rights  of the minor had also arisen, the defendants were prepared to   execute   the   sale   deed   through   the   natural   guardian representing the interest of the minors.   Though the said aspect   was   also   one   of   the   issues,   considering   the   fact that   the   Trial   Court   and   the   High   Court   have   arrived   at divergent   conclusion   relating   to   the   availability   of   the Page 10 of 29 remaining   sale   consideration,   examination   of   that   issue would   be   appropriate   as   other   issues   would   depend   on that   aspect.     In   that   background,   it   is   necessary   to examine   as   to   whether   the   plaintiffs   had   the   financial resource   as   was   required   to   be   paid   prior   to   15.10.2007 and   even   if   as   on   such   date   the   same   was   available, whether   the  plaintiffs   had  continued   to   possess   the  said funds   as   on   the   date   when   the   demand   was   made   to execute the sale deed by issuing the legal notice and also when   they   filed   the   suit   seeking   specific   performance   of the agreement. 14.   To   arrive   at   a   conclusion   in   that   regard,     at   the outset   what   is   necessary   to   be   taken   note   is   the   total value of the transaction; the amount that was required to be   paid   as   the   balance     sale   consideration   if   the transaction   was   to   be   concluded   and,   in   that   regard, whether   the   readiness   and   willingness   was   exhibited   by the plaintiff.  As on 15.10.2007, even if the availability of further   amount   of   Rs.   75   lakhs   is   accepted   as   proved, would   it   be   sufficient   to   hold   that   the   plaintiff   had Page 11 of 29 possessed the balance sale consideration so as to issue a direction   to   complete   the   transaction.     In   that   regard   if the   extent   of   land   as   indicated   in   the   sale   agreement dated   26.03.2007   is   taken   into   consideration   and   if   the value is worked out at  the  agreed rate of  Rs. 11,350  per cent of land, the total sale consideration for 1822 cents of land would  work out to Rs. 2,06,79,700 (Two Crores Six Lakhs   Seventy­Nine   Thousand   Seven   Hundred   only). From   the   said   amount   if   the   advance   of   Rs.   75   lakhs admittedly   received   by   the   defendants   is   deducted,   the balance   sale   consideration   would   be   in   a   sum   of   Rs. 1,31,79,700   (One   Crore   Thirty­One   Lakhs   Seventy­Nine Thousand   and   Seven   Hundred   only).     If   a   similar calculation   is   adopted   to   the   extent   as   indicated   in   the report   of   the   Court   Commissioner,   the   total   sale consideration   for   the   1771   cents   of   land   would   be   in   a sum   of   Rs.   2,10,00850   (Two   Crores   Ten   Lakhs   Eight Hundred and Fifty only).  If the advance amount of Rs. 75 lakhs   is   deducted   therefrom,   the   remaining   sale consideration would be in a sum of Rs. 1,26,00,850 (One Crore Twenty­Six Lakhs Eight Hundred and Fifty only).  Page 12 of 29 15.  It is in that back drop even if the lower sum of Rs. 1,02,60,850 (One Crore Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred   and   Fifty   only),   is   taken   into   consideration   the availability   of   funds   in   that   regard   to   pay   balance   sale consideration   is   to   be   examined.   In   that   regard   even though   the   document   at  Exhibit   A5,  the  account   extract of Axis Bank for the periods 09.10.2007 to 08.11.2007 is taken note, the same will at least indicate that the sum of Rs.   75   lakhs   was   available   in   the   account   as   on 15.10.2007.  Though the sum of Rs. 75 lakhs was shown in   the   account   and   even   if   the   endorsement   dated 14.10.2007 at the foot of the agreement is taken note, the said amount should be shown to have been available with the   plaintiffs  even   subsequent   to   08.11.2007,  as   also  on the   date   when   the   demand   was   made   by   issue   of   legal notice   and   further   when   the   suit   was   filed   and   specific performance  was  sought.    In the  absence  of  the   same,  a temporary   arrangement   made   to   have   certain   funds   in the   account   on   a   relevant   date   alone   cannot   be considered   as   the   financial   resource   being   available   to complete   the   transaction   when   in   addition   to   the   said Page 13 of 29 amount, further sum was required.   This is more so in a circumstance where in the instant facts the first plaintiff had   entered  into   an   agreement   of   sale   dated  23.10.2007 (Exhibit   X1)   with   one   Shri   Ali   Khan   during   the subsistence of the suit subject agreement and in the said agreement   the   first   plaintiff   with   reference   to   the   very properties   which   is   the   subject   matter   of   the   suit   has stated as hereunder : “the   party   No.   1   of   us   have   decided   to purchase the immovable property which are mentioned   in   the   schedule   herein   below AND whereas the party No. 1 of us have no intention   to   get   the   same   conveyed   directly in to their name AND hence the party No. 1 herein   agree   and   decide   that   they   do   not have   any   objections   to   get   conveyed   and register  the same in favour of the party  No. 2.” The reference to party no. 1 is to the first plaintiff and the party no. 2 is Shri Ali Khan.   The plaintiff No. 1 has not entered   into   the   witness   box   to   explain   the   purpose   for which   the   said   agreement   was   executed.     On   the   other Page 14 of 29 hand, the said Shri Ali Khan was examined as DW­2 who has stated as follows in his cross­examination.   “I   was   part   of   the   Exhibit   A1   agreement.     I participated   in   the   same   as   a   well­wisher   of both   the   parties.     I   know   that   the   plaintiffs have   paid   an   amount   of   Rs.   75   Lakhs   at   the time   of   the   agreement.     I   know   that   the agreement Exhibit A1 was not acted upon.” “I   came   to   know   that   the   agreement   did   not materialize   as   the   plaintiffs   did   not   have necessary   money   with   them.     The   plaintiffs approached me and told that they are unable to   purchase   and   so   I   should   purchase   the same.     That   time   I   inquired   with   the defendant.     I   inquired   with   the   defendant within 3­4 days of the plaintiff intimating me. The   defendant   No.   3   has   told   me   that   the defendants   have   no   objections   in   me purchasing   the   property.     Accordingly,   I entered in to Exhibit X1 agreement.”  16. In   the   back   drop   of   the   evidence   available   on record more particularly with regard to the consideration of the relief of specific performance sought in the suit, the Page 15 of 29 learned     Senior   Advocate   for   the   appellants­defendants has   relied   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of Man   Kaur   (Dead)   by   L.Rs   vs.   Hartar   Singh   Sangha , (2010) 10  SCC 512,  to contend that the person who has entered   into   the   suit   subject   agreement   namely   Shri Devassy   not   being   examined   will   be   fatal   and   that   the evidence tendered by PW­1 Shri Rubis Tharayil would be in   sufficient.     In   that   regard   it   is   contended   that   this Court   in   the   cited   decision   has   held   that   the   readiness and   willingness   to   perform   is   to   be   proved   with   the evidence of the  person having  personal knowledge of the details   of   transaction   and   the   evidence   tendered   by   the Power   of   Attorney   holder   would   be   in   sufficient.     Having taken note of the decision we are of the opinion that the said   decision   would   not   be   squarely   applicable   to   the present facts so as to discard the evidence of PW­1.  In so far   as   the   agreement   dated   26.03.2007   regarding   which specific   performance   is   sought,   we   notice   that   though Shri   Devassy   has   entered   into   the   agreement   with   the defendants it is done so,   for and on behalf of Shri Rubis Tharayil and therefore Shri Rubis Tharayil is also arrayed Page 16 of 29 as the plaintiff No. 1 in the suit.   If that be the position, in so far as the suit transaction and the evidence to prove the   sufficiency   of   funds,   the   evidence   tendered   by   him would   be   relevant.     Hence,   in   so   far   as   the   personal knowledge relating  to  the  other   aspects i.e. entering  into agreement with Shri Ali Khan and the recitals therein, it was required to be explained by  examining  Shri Devassy who would have been the relevant and competent witness to   explain   that   aspect   of   the   matter   more   particularly when   reference   with   regard   to   the   financial   capacity   is made therein. 17.   In   that   regard,   the   extract   from   the   agreement dated 23.10.2007 (Exhibit X1) between Shri Devassy and Shri   Ali   Khan   noticed   above   indicates   that   the   intention of   seeking   specific   performance   of   the   agreement   dated 26.03.2007 is given up there under.  One of the parties to the   said   agreement   namely   Shri   Ali   Khan   was   examined by   the   defendants   as   DW­2,   who   apart   from   referring   to the agreement has also stated that the same was entered into   since   the   plaintiffs   did   not   have   the   financial Page 17 of 29 resources   to   continue   the   transaction.     In   that circumstance,   it   is   only   Shri   Devassy   who   could   have explained   the   real   reason   if   any   for   executing   the   said agreement dated 23.10.2007 if it was not for the purpose indicated   therein   and   as   spoken   to   by   DW­2.     In   such situation   the   execution   of   the   said   agreement   dated 23.10.2007   will   have   to   be   taken   as   a   strong circumstance wherein it indicates that the plaintiffs, prior to filing the suit itself had intended to give up their right to seek for  specific performance for  want of the  financial resources. 18.       In that circumstance what would also be relevant to   be   taken   note   is   that   in   the   suit,   an   application   had been   filed   by   the   defendants   to   direct   the   plaintiff   to deposit the balance sale consideration.  Since the plaintiff had   contended   that   the   sum   of   Rs.   75   Lakhs   had   not been paid on 15.10.2007 as the title documents were not made   available   and   the   defendants   on   the   other   hand, had   contended   that   the   amount   had   not   been   made available   though   the   documents   were   ready,   the Page 18 of 29 applications   in   IA   No.   611/2008   and   IA   No.   1759/2008 were   filed.     In   view   of   the   directions   issued   in   IA   No. 611/2008   the   defendants   produced   the   title   deeds. Though   in   IA   No.   1759/2008   the   directions   were   issued to   deposit   the   balance   consideration   in   Court   within   the period, the said amount was not deposited.   Due to non­ deposit   the   suit   was   dismissed.     However,   the   fact remains   that   the   said   issue   was   considered   by   the   High Court   in   WP   No.   25719/2008   and   CRP   No.   680/2008 assailing  the said order.   The High Court on  considering the said aspect and finding that the dismissal of the suit for   not   depositing   the   entire   balance   sale   consideration would not be justified had restored the suit.   Though the said   order   has   attained   finality   and   to   that   extent   the restoration of the suit was justified; but the fact remains that   except   the   statement   at   Exhibit   A5   to   indicate   that the  sum  of  Rs. 75 lakhs was  available during  the  period 11.10.2007 to 19.10.2007, no other  documents, such as fixed deposit receipt for the said amount or deposit of the very same amount in the account subsequent 08.11.2007 was produced.  Even if the amount was not to be insisted Page 19 of 29 to   be   deposited   in   the   Court,   the   proof   of   availability should have been tendered.   In that circumstance, out of the   remaining   documents,   Exhibit   A9,   a   communication sent   by   the   plaintiff   No.1   not   being   supported   by authentic   document   is   eschewed,   from   the   amount depicted   in   Exhibit   A11   to   A13,   it   would   not   constitute the entire extent of balance sale consideration.  19. In   that   background,   the   perusal   of   the   judgment passed   by   the   Trial   Court   would   indicate   that   the   Trial Court   on   appreciating   the   evidence   has   at   the   outset arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   in   view   of   endorsement dated   14.10.2007   contained   in   the   agreement   the   non­ payment of Rs. 75 Lakhs on or before 15.10.2007 would constitute   waiver   and   cannot   be   considered   as   a   breach committed by the plaintiff.  To that extent the Trial Court was justified and even if that be so the availability of the sum   of   Rs.   75   Lakhs   sought   to   be   established   through the   document   at   Exhibit   A5   is   taken   into   consideration, whether   the   said   amount   was   still   available   subsequent thereto and whether the readiness and willingness can be Page 20 of 29 accepted   as   proved   was   the   appropriate   consideration required   to   be   made.     Hence   the   Trial   Court   in   that regard   has   rightly   taken   note   of   the   entire   evidence. While  taking  note of  this  aspect,  as has  been  referred to by   us   herein   above,   the   Trial   Court   has   taken   note   that the   plaintiffs   were   required   to   arrange   the   total   balance sale   consideration   of   Rs.   1,31,79,700/­   (One   Crore Thirty­One   Lakhs   Seventy­Nine   Thousand   Seven Hundred only).  20.  In that regard, the document at Exhibit A5 namely the   accounts   statement   of   Axis   Bank   was   taken   into consideration   and   had   rightly   observed   that   the   ledger extract for the period subsequent to 19.10.2007 was not produced   and   in   that   view   the   evidence   of   PW­1   was referred   as   he   could   not   say   on   which   day   he   withdrew Rs.   75   Lakhs   from   his   bank   account.     The   Exhibits   A6, A7   and   A8   were   taken   note   though   it   was   not appropriately attested and the amount as indicated in the said   documents   at   Rs.   15,62,426.70/­   Rs.   5,00,488/­ and   Rs.   7,97,205/­   which   were   in   credit   to   the   said Page 21 of 29 account   was   taken   note.   Having   discarded   Exhibit   A9 which   was   a   fax   message   without   the   supporting   bank documents, the amount of Rs. 2,33,399/­ in Exhibit A11 and   Rs.   37,187/­   in   Exhibit   A12   was   also   taken   note. The   Trial   Court   had   also   taken   into   consideration   the agreement   entered   into   between   Shri   Devassy   and   Shri Ali Khan, dated 23.10.2007 marked as Exhibit X1 which was   also   one   of   the   reasons   to   arrive   at   the   conclusion that   the   plaintiff   had   not   proved   their   readiness   and willingness. 21. As   against   the   consideration   made   by   the   Trial Court,   a   perusal   of   the   judgment   passed   by   the   High Court would indicate that the main basis for its ultimate conclusion   is   as   contained   in   Para   20   of   the   judgment which reads as here under: In   this   case,   Court   below   finds   that   the   documents produced by the plaintiffs were not sufficient to prove that   they   had   sufficient   money   with   them   to   pay   the balance   sale   consideration   within   the   period prescribed   for   performance   of   the   contract.     Of course, if the plaintiffs seek specific performance of a contract   their   readiness   and   willingness   to   comply with   the   terms   of   the   contract   is   of   paramount necessity.     Readiness   includes   the   capacity   to   raise funds   for   purchasing   the   property.     It   is   settled   law that there is no necessity to make available the funds at   the   time   of   filing   the   suit.     However,   it   has   to   be Page 22 of 29 shown   that   he   was   in   a   position   to   raise   funds   for purchasing the property within the time specified.   In the   case   on   hand,   the   total   consideration   of   the property   would   come   around   Rs.   1.5   crores   of   which Rs.  75  Lakhs  was paid  as advance  and there  was an offer   to   pay   Rs.   75   Lakhs   on   or   before   15.10.2007. Ext.   A10   is   the   certified   extract   of   an   account maintained   in   the   name   of   the   1 st   plaintiff,   which would   show   that   an   amount   of   Rs.   75   Lakhs   was credited   on   11.10.2007.     Therefore,   it   cannot   be stated  that   plaintiffs  were  incapable  of   raising   funds. Other documents namely, Exts. A11 to A13 produced by   plaintiffs   further   proves   their   capacity   to   raise funds   and   in   fact   they   had   substantial   amounts   at the   relevant   time   to   purchase   the   property. Therefore, the finding  of court below to that extent is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.  The   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   respondent­plaintiff sought to contend that the High Court also having taken note of the documents that were tendered in evidence has taken   into   consideration   the   fact   that   towards   the   sale consideration   a   sum   of   Rs.   75   Lakhs   had   been   paid   as advance and the plaintiff had  also shown that  they  were ready with the further amount of Rs.75 lakhs which was to   be   paid   on   or   before   15.10.2007.     In   that   view,   it   is contended   that   the   High   Court   had   rightly   taken   note that the plaintiff had the capacity to arrange the financial resource and as such had decreed the suit.  It is also his contention   that   in   the   final   conclusion   when   out   of   the five   properties   the   Item   No.   3   and   4   properties   were Page 23 of 29 excluded   since   the   right   to   transfer   the   minors   property had   not   been   established,     the   balance   amount   payable was much lesser being equivalent only to the value of the properties   in   suit   Item   Nos.   1,   2   and   5.   The   balance payable would amount to Rs. 52,34,700/­ and in view of the   judgment   passed   by   the   High   Court   the   amount   is also deposited on 08.11.2018. 22. The   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   appellants­ defendants   on   the   other   hand   would   contend   that   the defendants   were   willing   to   transfer   all   the   five   Items   of the property provided the plaintiffs were ready and willing and had paid the entire balance sale consideration for all the items of property.   It is contended that there was no bar to transfer the minors’ right by the natural guardian and   in   any   event   when   the   plaintiffs   have   filed   the   suit seeking   specific   performance   of   the   agreement   in   its entirety,   in   order   to   succeed   they   were   required   to establish   their   readiness   and   willingness   in   entirety   and only thereafter any other consideration even to carve out certain properties would have arisen.  The learned senior Page 24 of 29 counsel   for   the   appellant   has   relied   on   the   decision   of this   Court   in   the   case   of   N.P.   Thirugnanam   (dead)   by L.Rs   vs.   Dr.   R.   Jagan   Mohan   Rao   and   Ors.   (1995)   5 SCC   1150   wherein   it   is   held   that   in   the   absence   of showing   continuous   readiness   and   willingness   on   the part   of   the   plaintiff,   the   relief   of   specific   performance would not arise. 23. In   the   above   background,   we   find   that   the consideration   as   made   by   the   High   Court   does   not indicate   that   the   High   Court   has   taken   note   of   the evidence in the manner as has been analysed by the Trial Court.     From   the   reasoning   as   extracted   above   the   High Court   has   proceeded   by   indicating   that   the   readiness includes   the   capacity   to   raise   funds   for   purchasing   the property.     To   that   extent   though   the   High   Court   was justified,   the   assessment   of   the   evidence   made   does   not indicate   that   there   were   sufficient   documents   to   show that   they   had   the   capacity   to   raise   the   funds   for   the entire   balance   sale   consideration.     The   error   committed by   the  High   Court   is  that   it   proceeded  on   the   basis  that Page 25 of 29 the total consideration of the transaction is Rs. 1.5 crores of   which   Rs.   75   Lakhs   was   paid   as   advance   and   since there was an offer to pay the balance of Rs. 75 Lakhs on or   before   15.10.2007   which   was   available   in   credit   to their  account as  on  11.10.2007  the same was  sufficient. Hence   it   concluded   that   it   cannot   be   stated   that   the plaintiffs   were   incapable   of   raising   the   funds.     From   the discussion   made   by   the   Trial   Court   as   also   by   us   in   the course   of   this   judgment,   it   would   indicate   that   in   so   far as   the   total   sale   consideration   is   concerned,   even   if   the extent   indicated   as   per   the   Court   Commissioner’s   report is   taken,   it   would   be   the   sum   of   Rs.   2,01,00,850/­. Therefore,   the   balance   payable   would   be   Rs. 1,26,00,850/­.     Towards   payment   of   such   balance   sale consideration though as on 15.10.2007 the sum of Rs. 75 Lakhs   was   shown   to   the   credit,   the   availability   of   that amount   subsequent   to   08.11.2007   is   not   shown   as   the statement   at   Exhibit   A5   is   only   for   the   periods 09.10.2007   to  08.11.2007.     Hence,   the   said   amount  will have to be taken as being made available at one point in time by juggling the figures and was not shown available Page 26 of 29 for payment at the relevant point when the suit was filed. Hence   on   exclusion   of   the   same   the   remaining   amount through   Exhibit   A11   to   A13   would   be   in­sufficient   to indicate   that   as   on   date   of   filing   the   suit   they   had   the entire   remaining   balance   sale   consideration   and   were ready   and   willing   to   complete   the   transaction.     In   that circumstance,   the   deposit   presently   made   after   the judgment   is   rendered   by   the   High   Court   to   the   reduced extent   would   not   be   of   assistance   as   there   would   be change in the circumstances after more than a decade, as against what the position was in the year 2007. 24. In   that   circumstance,   when   not   only   the availability   of   fund   was   satisfactorily   explained   but   in   a circumstance where the first plaintiff had entered into an agreement dated 23.10.2007 in favour of Shri Ali Khan in respect   of   the   very   same   properties   even   before   securing the   sale   deed   in   their   favour,   the   bonafides   would   also become   relevant   when   the   specific   performance   as   an equitable relief is taken into consideration.   In that view, the   Trial   Court   while   declining   the   relief   of   specific Page 27 of 29 performance   has   appropriately   granted   the   decree   for realisation of the sum of Rs. 75 Lakhs with interest at 9% per   annum.     To   that   extent   though   the   Trial   Court   was justified, we find it necessary to protect the interest of the plaintiffs   to   recover   the   said   amount.     In   that   view,   it   is necessary to direct the defendants to refund the amount to   the   plaintiffs   within   a   time   frame,   failing   which   the amount   is   to   be   paid   with   the   higher   rate   of   interest. Further,   charge   is   to   be   created   over   the   suit   schedule properties   to   ensure   repayment   of   the   amount.     Subject to the above the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2018 in RFA No. 344/2011 is liable to be set aside.  25. In the result we pass the following, ORDER a) The   judgment   dated   21.08.2018   passed   in   RFA   No. 344/2011   is   set   aside   and   the   judgment   dated 30.07.2008 in OS No. 89/2008 is restored. b) The appellant is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 75   Lakhs   with   interest   at   9%   per   annum   from   the date   of   receipt   till   the   date   of   repayment   and   the Page 28 of 29 repayment   shall   be   made   within   3   months   from   this date. c) If   the   refund   is   not   made   within   3   months,   the   said sum of Rs. 75 Lakhs shall attract interest at 12% per annum   from   the   date   of   receipt   till   the   date   of   re­ payment. d) There   shall   be   a   charge   over   the   suit   schedule properties   until   realisation   of   the   amount   by   the plaintiff   and   such   charge   shall   stand   automatically raised if the amount is deposited in compliance of the directions contained above.  e) The appeal is allowed in the above terms, however, in the   facts   and   circumstance   the   cost   incurred   in   this appeal shall be borne by the appellant.  ……………………….J. (R. BANUMATHI) ……………………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, August 20, 2019 Page 29 of 29