1. This appeal is focussed by the defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2008 made in O.S.No.11 of 2007, which was one for specific performance of an agreement to sell, on the file of the Fast Track Court II, Ranipet (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet). The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance with the following prayer: "(a) To direct the defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration, in respect of the schedule described property as per the suit sale agreement dated 11.09.2006;

(b) in default, to execute the sale deed by this Honble Court on behalf of the defendant through process of this Honble Court;

(c) To grant an order of injunction restraining the defendant, their men, agents etc., from alienating the suit property to any 3rd parties pending disposal of this suit; and

(d) For costs.." (extracted as such)

3. The defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit; whereupon issues were framed.

4. During trial, the plaintiff-Sitrula examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2-Dhanapal and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. The defendant-Gopal examined himself as

D.W.1 on his side.

5. Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant/defendant preferred this appeal on various grounds.

6. A thumb nail sketch of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant placing reliance on the grounds of appeal, would run thus:

(a) The trial Court failed to take into consideration Section 16 as well as Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Mere verbatim reproduction of the ingredients of those Sections would not tantamount to proving the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part of the contract.

(b) The plaintiff has to stand or fall on his own pleadings and she cannot pick holes in the case of the defendant and try to achieve success in the litigative process.

(c) There is nothing to indicate that the plaintiff was ready with the alleged remaining part of the sale consideration amounting to Rupees eleven lakhs and odd. The evidence

would show that even according to the plaintiff, she was not in a position to pay the remaining part of the sale consideration, but she borrowed money from Mani and Annamalai, but they were not examined before the Court.

(d) The evidence of P.W.2 is not in favour of P.W.1-the plaintiff. In fact, there was no consensus ad idem at all between the plaintiff and the defendant, in allegedly agreeing to sell his property in favour of the plaintiff.

(e) There was actually a loan transaction which emerged between the defendants son and the plaintiff. As the relatives of the plaintiff are all money lenders, the plaintiff also was lending money for usurious interest. By way of security alone, in blank papers the defendant put his signatures, but it was subsequently converted into Ex.A1. Simply because there are some minor contradictions between the defendants reply notice and his written statement, the plaintiff cannot try to make a mountain out of a mole hill and venture to wriggle out of her liability to prove her case by fobbing of the onus on him.

(f) The catena of decisions would be to the effect that ever since the date of agreement to sell, the plaintiff should be ready and willing to perform his or her part of the contract and in the absence of it, the discretionary relief of specific performance cannot be ordered. But the trial Court ignoring all these salient features, simply took the case of the plaintiff for gospel truth and decreed the suit, warranting interference in the appeal.

7. In a bid to shoot down and mince meat, torpedo and pulv