The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, and the validity of the agreement under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were central legal points established in the judgment.

Common Judgment M. Chockalingam, J.

This appeal and the cross objection has arisen from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in C.S.No.1437 of 1988 whereby a decree for specific performance issuing a direction to the defendant to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the land that has been exempted by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority.

2.The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit with the following averments:

(a) The plaintiff intended to start an Educational Society. She was in search of a suitable land. The original defendant represented to her that he was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same in public auction on 111. 1975; that he sold a portion of the said property together with the bungalow and the appurtenant land in favour of one Saraswathy Kailasam on 23. 1984; that the balance of the land measuring 9 acres and 50 cents was available; and that he was ready and willing to sell the same for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. Accordingly, an agreement for sale was entered into by her with the original defendant represented by his Power of Attorney, on 11. 1985.

(b) On 13. 1985, a sum of Rs.1 lakh was already paid as advance, and another sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid on 16. 1985. The original defendant agreed to obtain exemption for the transfer of property from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and also necessary Income Tax Clearance Certificate. It is also agreed that in the event of sale transaction being completed, she should obtain vacant possession from the Madras Race Club, a tenant in respect of a portion of the property. The sale transaction shall be completed within six months. But, despite repeated requests to sign and present necessary documents for obtaining permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and clearance certificate from the Income Tax Department, the defendant was postponing the same. The plaintiff was all along ready and willing to pay the balance of sale price. The defendant did not cooperate with the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant committed default of the agreement. Hence the suit for specific performance.

3.The Power of Attorney Agent of the original defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement with the following averments:

(a) The suit ought to have been instituted only against the disclosed principal, and hence, leave to sue is necessary. The disclosed principal ordinarily resides outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The suit is also barred by limitation. The agreement entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff on 11. 1985, contains reciprocal promises that the plaintiff should get exemption from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority; that she should pay all arrears of tax payable to the Urban Land Tax Ceiling Authority upto the date of the properties agreed to be conveyed; and that she should get vacant possession from Madras Race Club. The plaintiff did not take steps to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. She did not take steps for obtaining exemption from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and did not even ascertain the arrears of Urban Land Tax. The plaintiff was indifferent towards her obligations. The plaintiff did not show any interest in the transaction or to pay the balance of sale consideration. The plaintiff has even abandoned the agreement. In such circumstances, the defendant sent a letter on 22. 1988 cancelling the agreement and calling upon the plaintiff to return the original title deeds.

(b) The defendant is also willing to return the advance of Rs.5 lakhs. The defendant caused a lawyers notice. The plaintiff has been evading the service of various notices issued. The plaintiff never expressed her willingness. She was never ready and willing to complete the transaction. She did not have the finance to meet the same. The agreement is hit by Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act. Hence it is ab initio void and oppos