A plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance if they are not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

1. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, alleged to have been executed by the appellant/defendant on 19.9.1992.

3. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff was that the appellant/defendant entered into an agreement of sale on 19.9.1992 agreeing to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and also received a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- from the first respondent/plaintiff and both the parties agreed that the agreement can be enforced within 10 years' time and possession was also handed over to the first respondent/plaintiff on the date of agreement. The further case of the first respondent/plaintiff was that, though he was ready to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the transaction, the appellant/defendant dragged on the issue. As the first respondent/plaintiff was put in possession of the property, he also put up a construction in the building and spent more than a lakh rupee in improving the suit property. In the year 2002, when the first respondent/plaintiff came to know that the appellant/defendant was trying to make alienation, he issued notice dated 12.1.2002, calling upon the appellant/defendant to execute the sale deed and the appellant/defendant has sent a reply dated 9.2.2002, denying the execution of the agreement of sale and also handing over of possession of the property to the first respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the suit was filed for suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 19.9.1992.

4. The appellant/defendant contested the suit stating that he has neither executed the agreement of sale, as alleged by the first respondent/plaintiff and received a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-, nor possession was delivered to the first respondent/plaintiff under the agreement of sale and the first respondent/plaintiff, after trespassing into the property, filed the suit in O.S.No.372 of 2002, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddaore, for the relief of injunction and in that suit itself, the appellant/defendant has filed a written statement, denying the signature in the agreement of sale and also took steps to compare the signature found in the agreement of sale with that of his admitted signature and a Handwriting Expert was also appointed to compare the signature and he has given opinion that the signature found in the agreement of sale was not that of the appellant/defendant. Thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.372 of 2002, was withdrewn by the first respondent and the present suit was filed for specific performance and the conduct of the first respondent/plaintiff will not entitle him to get the relief of specific performance, as the agreement was not executed by the appellant/defendant and the first respondent/plaintiff was also not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

5. Both the Courts below have held that the agreement of sale was entered into by the appellant/defendant in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff and though the Expert has given opinion that the signatures found in the agreement of sale was not that of the appellant/defendant, the Expert was not examined and without examining him, his opinion cannot be taken into consideration and as per the agreement of sale, 10 years' time was fixed and the suit was filed within three years from the date of repudiation of the contract by the appellant/defendant and therefore, the suit is also well within time and the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale. Hence, the Second Appeal.

6. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the Second Appeal:-

i) Whether the Courts below were right in holding that the first respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

iii) Whether the first respondent was entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance?

v) Whether the appellant/defendan