The central legal point established in the judgment is the plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and the discretionary nature of granting specific performance relief.

This appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.126 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur. The plaintiff has lost his case before the trial Court but on appeal learned first appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Hence, the second defendant has preferred this second appeal.

2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:-

2(a) The suit is for specific performance of a contract under an agreement sale dated 4. 1984 entered into between the plaintiff and one Bodiammal @ Latchumakka. Bodiammal had agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs.12,000/- and she had received an advance amount of Rs.7,000/- agreeing to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- and execute and register the sale deed in six months time at the cost of the plaintiff and on the same day, she also deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The said Bodiammal also showed the original sale deed dated 312. 1939 at the time of the of the sale agreement dated 4. 1984 but she took back the original title deed dated 312. 1939 promising to hand over the original of the sale deed at the time of the execution and registration of the sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration Rs.5,000/-.

2(b) The second defendant is the relation of the said Bodiammal @ Latchumakka. Both D2 and D1 were aware that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the sale agreement. The plaintiff is doing personal cultivation of the suit land with the help of his cousin Nanjareddy. The suit sale agreement has been executed by the said Bodiammal in the presence of attesting witnesses and scribe. The second defendant is also aware of these details as he was present at the time of the sale agreement. The plaintiff has been pressing upon the said Bodiammal to receive the balance of sale consideration Rs.5,000/-and execute and register the sale deed in his favour at his cost as per the suit sale agreement. But he has been postponing the same on account of her ill health and also for the reasons best known to her and she has been also giving evasive replies for some time, though the plaintiff has been every ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ie., to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- and have the sale deed executed and registered at this cost in his favour from her.

2(c) The said Bodiammal @ Latchumakka died during 2nd week of January 1986 in Komarnapalli Village after illness, for some time. The first defendant is the brothers son of Bodiammals husband. D1 is also fully aware of the suit agreement in favour of the plaintiff and his possession of the suit property in pursuance of the same. Soon after the death of Bodiammal the first defendant began to lay claim to the suit property as an heir to Bodiammal and tried to interfere with the plaintiffs possession over the suit land. Similarly the 2nd defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiffs possession of the suit property and he on 21. 1986 tried to cut the eucalyptus trees on the suit land. The plaintiffs cousin prevented the 2nd defendant from doing so and informed the plaintiff about the 2nd defendants illegal attempts. The plaintiff thereafter came to the village and questioned the 2nd defendant about his conduct. There was no proper relied from the D2. But D2 would contend that he had taken valid sale deed from Bodiammal @ Latchumakka in respect of the suit property. The 2nd defendant has refused to show the sale deed to the plaintiff inspite of his repeated demands. Hence, the plaintiff has issued a notice dated 25.01.1986 to the defendant calling upon them to execute a registered sale deed in pursuance of the earlier sale agreement dated 4. 1989 legally and lawfully executed by Bodiammal @ Latchumakka. The notice sent by the plaintiff was received by the 1st defendant but he has not sent