The court emphasized the importance of proving readiness and willingness to perform a contract in a specific performance case, as well as the need for valid authorization for an agreement of sale.

K.MOHAN RAM

1. The defendant O.S.No.101 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, is the appellant in the above appeal. The said appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 05.09.2008 made in the aforesaid suit decreeing the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent herein.

2. The case of the respondent, as pleaded in the plaint, is as follows:-

The suit schedule property belongs to Ve-En Textiles Private Limited, the defendant in the suit. The respondent is a tenant under the appellant under the lease agreement, dated 15.05.2002. After negotiations, the respondent and the appellant entered into an agreement of sale, dated 11.02.2006, where-under the appellant had agreed to sell the suit properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.30 lakhs. An advance of Rs.4 lakhs was paid and the time for performance of the contract was fixed as three months. The time is not treated as the essence of the contract. The respondent has made the following payments subsequent to 11.02.2006, namely, on 24.02.2006 Rs.2 lakhs, on 28.02.2006 Rs.2 lakhs and on 03.03.2006 Rs.1 lakh. Thus a total sum of Rs.9 lakhs has been paid under the agreement of sale. It is admitted by the respondent that xerox copies of the title deeds have been handed over to the respondent and they were subsequently returned to the appellant after verification. The respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but inspite of several repeated demands, the appellant postponed the completion of the contract under some pre-text or other. Subsequently as the respondent was threatened to be evicted by the appellant, the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.295 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, for interim injunction and ad-interim injunction was obtained, pending the suit, in I.A.No.1321 of 2006.

3. The respondent issued a notice, dated 07.12.2006, calling upon the appellant to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute the sale deed, but there was no reply for the notice. Subsequently the appellant issued a notice, dated 28.12.2006 alleging termination of the agreement of sale. It was the appellant who was evasive and did not co-operate with the respondent with an ulterior motive. Because of the indifferent attitude of the appellant only, the sale deed not executed, hence the suit has been filed seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale.

4. The appellant contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement inter-alia contending as follows:-

The agreement of sale, dated 11.02.2006, is not the first agreement between the appellant and the respondent. The sum of Rs.4 lakhs was not received by the appellant on 11.02.2006 as stated in the agreement. Prior to the agreement, dated 11.02.2006, the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the very same suit property on 01.07.2005 itself and under the said agreement, a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, as advance, was paid on various dates, as detailed below:-

i. Rs.10,000/- as token advance in June, 2005.

ii. Rs.1,00,000/- by Cheque No.502499, dated 11.06.2005 (Both payments are before the agreement of sale).

iii. Rs.90,000/- by cheque No.260531, dated 04.07.2005.

iv. R.30,000/- by Cheque No.517391, dated 04.07.2005.

v. Rs.90,000/- by Cheque No.049517, dated 08.07.2005.

vi. Rs.40,000/- by Transfer from A/c Mrs. Shobana dated 09.07.2005.

vii. Rs.40,000/- by Cheque No.517393, dated 25.07.2005.

The contention that time was not treated as the essence of the contract is not true. The respondent promised to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.26 lakhs within six months and get the sale deed executed in his favour, but he failed to perform his part of the contract inspite of repeated oral demands made by the appellant.

5. As the respondent could not perform his part of the contract as per the agreement of s