IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and the disputed oral agreement for reducing the sale price led to denial of specific performance, permitting only the return of advance payment with interest.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

1. The decree for specific performance is under challenge in these appeals by defendants 1 and 8 respectively.

2. The first defendant is the plaintiff's uncle (father's brother). The second defendant is the power of attorney holder of the first defendant. The 8^th defendant is the transferee pendente lite. The second defendant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 3 to 7. They were subsequently deleted from the party array.

3. The first defendant is settled in the United States of America. The plaintiff is into business in U.A.E. The plaintiff, and the first defendant through his power of attorney holder the second defendant, entered into Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 21.02.2009. Thereunder, 1 acre 20 cents of property belonging to the first defendant was agreed to be conveyed to the plaintiff. The sale consideration fixed was Rs. 1,50,000/- per cent. An amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid towards advance sale consideration. The period fixed for performance was 11 months. Subsequently, on 29.03.2010, the period was extended till 30.09.2010 and the sale consideration was reduced to Rs. 1,40,000/- per cent.

4. According to the plaintiff, in May 2009, the parties orally agreed that the sale consideration will stand re-fixed at Rs. 1,20,000/- per cent. On 06.09.2010 the plaintiff issued Ext.A4 notice demanding performance of the agreement. Ext.A6 is the reply, denying the alleged oral agreement fixing the consideration at Rs. 1,20,000/-. It is accordingly that the suit is filed.

5. The defendant admitted Ext.A1 agreement. It was also admitted that the sale consideration was later re-fixed at Rs. 1,40,000/- per cent. However, the alleged subsequent oral agreement bringing down the consideration at Rs. 1,20,000/- per cent was denied. It was contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform Ext. A1 agreement.

6. The trial court, relying upon certain e-mail communications between the parties, upheld the oral agreement whereby the consideration was fixed at Rs. 1,20,000/-. It was found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the agreement. Taking note of the passage of time since the execution of Ext.A1 agreement, the court fixed the value at Rs.1,50,000/- per cent, and granted a decree for specific performance for the said value.

7. We have heard Sri.J.Omprakash and Sri.N.K. Subramanian on behalf of the appellants-defendants and Sri.G.S.Reghunath, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

8. The points that arise for determination in these appeals are: -

(i) Is the alleged oral agreement re-fixing the consideration under Ext.A1 agreement at Rs.1,20,000/- proved by the available evidence?

(ii) Are the email communications inadmissible in evidence for want of certification in terms of Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act?

(iii) Does the evidence on record establish the continued readiness and willingness of the plaintiff?

(iv) Does the exercise of discretion by the trial court under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, to grant a decree for specific performance warrant any interference?

9. Ext.A1 agreement is admitted. The period fixed under Ext.A1 was 11 months, which was to expire in January, 2010. On 29.03.2010 the period was extended till 30.09.2010 and the sale consideration was reduced to Rs. 1,40,000/- per cent. The above is endorsed on the reverse of Ext.A1. The above is also not in dispute. According to the plaintiff, in May 2010 there was an oral agreement slashing down the sale consideration to Rs. 1,20,000/- per cent. This is disputed by the defendant. Therefore, the primary question is whether the claim of the plaintiff that the sale consideration under Ext.A1 agreement was re-fixed at Rs. 1,20,000/- per cent, proved or