The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the agreement, compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and the determination of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract.

This Second Appeal was directed against the decree and judgment dated 19.04.1994 of Sub Court, Dharmapuri in A.S.7 of 1993, by confirming the decree passed by the trial court (District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri) on 04.01.1993 in its O.S.722 of 1990.

2. During the course of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

(1) Whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that the plaintiff / respondent has complied with the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ?

(2) Whether the Courts below erred in law in granting a decree of specific performance for sale especially when serious allegation of frud has been made by the respondent with regard to the execution of Ex.A-1 dated 27.08.1987 ?

3. This is a suit for specific performance. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant, who himself is the brother of plaintiff's husband. There was an agreement between the parties on 27.08.1987 under Ex.A-1, agreeing to sell 25 cents of land in Survey No.122 and 33 cents of land in Survey No.120 with right to irrigate in the well thereon, for a sum of Rs.10,000/= and that there was payment of advance of Rs.7,000/- to the defendants with a further clause that sale deed can be executed within a period of three years upon payment of the balance of Rs.3,000/- and in case, if the defendants were not ready to receive the said cash of Rs.3,000/-, it may be deposited in District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri. It is a registered document. The copy of registration itself will be proved for execution thereon. Therefore, it is idle for the appellants/defendants to contend, under their notice dated 21.06.1990 marked as Ex.A-2, as if Ex.A-1 was not an agreement for sale and that it was only executed as a mortgage. The further plea of the appellants in the written statement was that a fraud has been played. The element of fraud has to be proved only by the person who has pleaded so. In view of the fact that Ex.A-1 is a registered document and the recitals very clearly do show that it was executed as an agreement of sale, the mere denial under Ex.A-2 by the appellants/ defendants without any further evidence, may not go to substantiate their case of fraud and therefore, Ex.A-2 was issued only in avoidance of the agreement.

4. The respondent / plaintiff has immediately replied on 27.06.1990 under Ex.A-3 stating, besides other facts, that there was a subsequent understanding between the parties, in and by which the sum due under the pronote dated 28.08.1988 for a sum of Rs.2,000/= with interest at 2% per annum will have to be adjusted towards the balance of Rs.3,000/= found in the sale agreement and in case if the appellants/ defendants proposed not to act upon that understanding, plaintiff is ready to pay the entire balance of Rs.3,000/- reserving to take appropriate action to recover the sum due under the pronote. Of course the contents of this notice under Ex.A-3 was repudiated in the written statement. Subsequently under Ex.A-4 dated 05.07.1990, the respondent/ plaintiff has deposited a sum of Rs.3,000/- into a Nationalised Bank in her name and produced that document along with the plaint presented on 13.08.1990 praying for specific performance. In the plaint also, it was pleaded that she is willing to perform her part of the contract by paying a sum of Rs.3,000/-. In these circumstances, the finding of the courts below that Ex.A-1 was not intended to have been executed as a mortgage; that there was no fraud played as pleaded by the appellants/defendants and that it was a registered document and hence,it was found that Ex.A-1 was true and genuine and that finding is to be upheld for the reasons stated supra.

5. The counsel for the appellants / defendants further contended that plaintiff was never willing to perform her part of the contract as contemplated under section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and in that event, she may not be entitled for a decree for specific performance a