The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform the terms of the contract as required by the Specific Relief Act. The court also emphasized the importance of the plaintiff's conduct in determining the entitlement to the discretionary relief of specific performance.

M. Chockalingam, J.

Challenge is made to the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 211. 2003 rendered in C.S.No.585 of 1992, whereby a suit filed for specific performance and delivery of vacant possession of the suit property or alternatively, refund of advance and damages both past and future, has been partly decreed.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit with the following averments;

(a) The plaintiff is the owner of the property at Door No.18, Lakshminarasimhan Street, T.Nagar, Madras. He entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property with M/s.Alacrity Foundation Private Limited. All procedural formalities were complied with and the sale consideration was also fixed at Rs.63 lakhs, which was to be paid in instalments. As advised by the tax consultant, the plaintiff purchased another residential house, to avoid the Capital Gains Tax.

(b) While the matter stood thus, the defendant, who is the owner of the suit property situate at No.14, II Street, Nandanam Extension, Chennai-35, came forward to sell the same. The terms and conditions of sale were put in written agreement dated 012. 1989. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.16 lakhs and an advance of Rs.2.50 lakhs was paid on the date of the agreement. The plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sale consideration within two months from the date of the agreement and to have the sale deed executed and registered. The said period was fixed mainly only on the defendants assurance that he would get the No Objection Certificate from the appropriate authorities within the said period. There was a default clause in the agreement, which entitled the plaintiff to a sum of Rs.50,000/-by way of damages, in addition to the right to sue the defendant for specific performance, if there was any breach on the part of the defendant. The No Objection Certificate under Section 269 UG. (2) of the Income Tax Act was issued by the authorities on 12.02.1990. The plaintiff prepared a draft deed and forwarded the same to the defendant for obtaining the requisite Income Tax Clearance Certificate under Section 230-A of the Income Tax Act. The defendant, being the resident of Hyderabad, the correspondence developed between the parties through post and over phone.

(c) In the meantime, the plaintiffs property was sold and he had to vacate the same and take up the place of residence. He occupied another apartment on the monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-, hoping that the suit transaction could be completed. Thereafter, he shifted the present address. The plaintiff, in compliance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, opened a separate bank account earmarked for Capital Gains purposes with the Union Bank of India, Egmore Branch and deposits were made in this account and the plaintiff had indicated to the defendant that as and when required, further funds would be released from the said account. A copy of the income tax clearance certificate was received on 20th June 1990, which was forwarded by the defendant, but the finalised draft sale deed was not sent to the plaintiff. The defendant sent a letter on 26.06.1990 complaining of delay on the part of the plaintiff and threatened that the balance sale consideration must be paid by 09.07.1990; otherwise, the agreement would be rescind. The plaintiff had clearly indicated to the defendant that because of his evasive activities, he would not be able to complete the transaction on or before 31.07.1990. The defendants son agreed for the same. He also agreed to forward a finalised draft sale deed to enable the plaintiff to type the sale deed on stamp paper.

(d) In the meanwhile, the defendant demanded further Rs.6 lakhs. The plaintiff drew from the Capital Gains Account to pay the said amount. It was the defendant who requested to further advance of Rs.5 lakhs and the plaintiff also agreed to pay the same and requested that at least, the upstairs portion may be vacated to enable the plaintiff to occupy the same, so th