Direction to plaintiff for showing readiness and willingness.

1. The earlier appeal is against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 68 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore. The later appeal is against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 189 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore. O.S.No. 189 of 1991 was originally pending as O.S.No. 3002 of 1987 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras and on being transferred it came to be taken on the file by the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore and renumbered as referred to above. In this jud gment the substantive parties to the appeals would hereinafter be referred to as ‘vendors’ and ‘buyer’. The buyer is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 189 of 1991. It is a suit for specific performance. The vendors, numbering five, are the defendants in that suit. That suit was dismissed on merits. The vendors are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 68 of 1987. The buyer is the first defendant in that suit and his tenant is the second defendant in that suit. That was a suit laid by the vendors for declaration that the fir st defendant committed breach of contract of sale and therefore he had lost his right to buy the suit property; for possession and for mesne profits, past and future. That suit was decreed on merits. Hence the two appeals referred to above. Heard Mr. R. Alagar, learned Senior Counsel for the buyer in both the appeals and Mr.S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel for the vendors in both the appeals;

2. The suit for specific performance was originally presented before the City Civil Court, Madras on 4. 1987 and numbered as O.S.No. 3002 of 1987. Later on it was taken on the file as O.S.No. 189 of 1991 by the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore on 210. 1991. The suit for declaration and for recovery of possession was presented before the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore on 17. 1987 and was taken on file as O.S.No. 68 of 1987. The suit for specific performance being earlier in point of time to the suit for declaration of title I am inclined to summarize the pleadings in the suit for specific performance first before summarizing the pleadings in the connected suit. The pleading in the suit for specific performance are as follows:

The case of the plaintiff is summarized as hereunder:

.(i) The second defendant is the father of defendants 1, 3, to 5. They constitute an undivided family. The second defendant is the main spokesman for the family. Defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff through one Rajamanickam for the sale of the suit properties. There were a number of hut dwellers and trespassers in the suit property. Defendant thus found themselves in a difficult position. In that context they approached the plaintiff and negotiated for the sale of the properties. An agreement of sale was entered into by the first defendant for himself and on behalf of the other defendants with the plaintiff on 17. 1975. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 10, 000 as advance. Since the sale deed for the property stood in the name of the second defendant, the first defendant represented that the property is that of a Hindu undivided family. Therefore clauses were put that the plaintiffs advocate has to be satisfied about the title and the first defendant should arrange to get sale deeds executed by the different owners of the property comprising the entire lot.

.(ii) Though the first defendant had to remove the huts and tresspassers, yet he was not able to do so. Therefore the plaintiff spent considerable money and had the huts as well as the tresspassers removed. The plaintiff put up a compound wall and employed a watchman in the premises. The plaintiff also constructed sheds and quarters for watchman at his cost. The agreement contemplates removal of huts by the first defendant and the plaintiff was required to put up a compound wall around the suit properties as soon as the huts were removed. The first defendant had not removed the huts within three months and hence the parties to the suit considered that time was not the essence of the co