The main legal point established is that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the defendant must prove any alternative claims regarding the nature of the agreement.

1. This second appeal has been directed against the concurrent Judgments passed in Original Suit No.224 of 2000 by the Sub Court, Thoothukudi and in Appeal Suit No.4 of 2006 by the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-II), Thoothukudi.

2. Therespondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.224 of 2000 on the file of the trial Court praying to pass a decree of specific performance in her favour, wherein the appellant has been shown as sole defendant.

3. Thematerial averments made in the plaint may be stated like thus:

The property mentioned in the schedule absolutely belongs to the defendant and he agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. Both the plaintiff and defendant have executed the suit sale agreement dated 25.06.1997. On the date of execution of the suit sale agreement, the defendant has received Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the terms of the suit sale agreement, the plaintiff has to pay balance of sale consideration within two years from the date of agreement. The defendant has delivered original title deed relating to the suit property mentioned in the schedule. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Despite of demand made by the plaintiff on several occasions, the defendant has not come forward to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and ultimately the plaintiff has chosen to issue a notice dated 20.05.2000 and a corrigendum dated 05.06.2000. Even after receipt of the same, the defendant has not come forward to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. But he has given a reply notice dated 21.06.2000 containing false allegations. It is false to say that the suit sale agreement has come into existence on the basis of a loan transaction mentioned in the reply notice. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the relief sought for in the plaint.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant, it is averred that the defendant has never agreed to sell the property mentioned in the schedule in favour of the plaintiff. The husband of the plaintiff is a money lender. The defendant has approached him for getting a loan and he demanded to execute the suit sale agreement and the suit sale agreement has been executed as a security for the loan amount received by the defendant. The defendant has paid Rs.1,00,000/-to the husband of the plaintiff and after some time, he has paid Rs.20,000/-and he demanded return of the suit sale agreement. But the husband of the plaintiff has refused and subsequently instituted the present suit on false grounds and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves dismissal.

5. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant as appellant has preferred Appeal suit No.4 of 2006 on the file of the first appellate Court.

6. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against the concurrent Judgments passed by the Courts below, the present second appeal has been preferred at the instance of the defendant as appellant.

7. As agreed by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, the present second appeal is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission.

8. On the side of the appellant/defendant, the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration:

.(i) Whether the findings of the Courts below are vitiated by failure to consider the evidence of PW3 and DW3 corroborated by Ex.A1 establishing that Ex.A1 is not indented to be an agreement of sale but it is only a security for loan advance?

.(ii) Whether the Courts below right in not drawing