The judgment established that the plaintiff's conduct must be blemishless to be entitled to specific performance of a contract. It also highlighted the importance of readiness and willingness to perform and the essence of time in a contract.

M. Chockalingam, J.

Challenge is made to a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in C.S.No.273 o 1996, a suit for specific performance, granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The plaint averments are stated as follows:

(a) An agreement, dated 12. 1994 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant to sell the property more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint, to the plaintiff. In the said agreement, the defendant has also disclosed the fact of the loan availed from the Indian Overseas Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Madras. The agreed sale consideration was Rs.10,25,000/-, and the plaintiff has paid Rs.50,000/-as advance to the defendant. The sale transaction was to be concluded within the maximum period of three months from the date of agreement. The plaintiff had to arrange to get the vacant possession of the schedule property from the tenant on or before the date of sale. The understanding between the parties was that the balance of sale consideration was to be secured by the plaintiff from the Oriental Benefit & Deposit Society Limited, Madras, and the plaintiff has paid the necessary fees to the society on 22. 1994. The defendant obtained income tax clearance on 24. 1994. It was never agreed that the society will pay the bank for the release of the title deeds, and the defendant ought to have made necessary arrangements for the same. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant on 5. 1994, calling upon him to fulfill his obligations under the agreement, and she also sent a reminder on 15. 1994, to which the defendant gave a reply on 15. 1994, claiming performance by the plaintiff in a manner not visualized in the agreement.

(b) On 35. 1994, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.27,145.20 towards arrears of property tax and Rs.3,270/- towards arrears of water charges for the schedule mentioned property, but the defendant objected to the said payments and stated that the same are not binding on him. The defendant wanted a further advance of Rs.35,000/-and the plaintiff also paid the same on 26. 1994. The plaintiff also arranged for obtaining the vacant possession of the tenanted portions, namely the third and fourth floors of the schedule property from the tenant, one Thiru I.Selvam, paying him a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. Meanwhile, the husband of the plaintiff received a lawyers notice dated 7. 1994 issued on behalf of one R.Jeyarani, claiming that the defendant had entered into an agreement on 8. 2003 to sell to her the schedule property. The plaintiff also wrote to the defendant on 17. 1994 informing the same. But the defendant denied the same by a reply dated 8. 1994. The defendant alleged for the first time that the amounts payable to the Bank have to be determined in C.S.No.1542 of 1993 filed by the bank against the defendant. The defendant further demanded vacant possession of the floors occupied by the plaintiff and also damages for use and occupation of the same. There was exchange of notices. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. The defendant is also taking steps to forcibly take possession of third and fourth floors of the schedule property from the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance and also for permanent injunction.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement stating that on 12. 1994, the defendant and the plaintiff undertook for sale and purchase of the suit property; that it was agreed that the plaintiff would purchase the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.10,25,000/-, and she would clear the amounts due to the Indian Overseas Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, which was Rs.6,75,000/-at that time; that she also agreed that she would pay Rs.1,30,000/-in addition to sale consideration by way of cheque separately in favour of the defendant; that the agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant only in the presence of one Mr.Balasubramanian, Branch