The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the plaintiff to establish readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the principles for granting specific performance.

R. SUBBIAH, J.

Defendants 2 and 3, the legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant, are the appellants, who filed this Second Appeal aggrieved over the decree and judgment dated 17.9.2001 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in A.S. No. 183 of 2000, whereby the decree and judgment dated 27.4.2000 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in O.S. No. 1364 of 1992 were affirmed.

2. The respondents herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 1364 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, against the defendant Kaliappa Gounder (deceased 1st defendant) for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 9.9.1991.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:

The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and on 9.9.1991, the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell the suit property for a sum of ` 1,85,000/- and received a sum of ` 30,001/- as advance from the plaintiffs by acknowledging the same in the agreement itself. Time for completion of the sale was fixed as one year from the date of agreement. Since the plaintiffs wanted to convert the suit property into house sites to various parties, pursuant to the sale agreement, they spent more than ` 10,000/- for levelling the ground, laying the road, fixing the boundary stones, etc. The plaintiffs subsequently paid ` 85,001/- on various dates to the defendant and they entered into agreements with the third parties to sell the sites. On 12.2.1992, when the plaintiffs offered another sum of ` 50,000/-, the defendant refused to receive the same at the instance of his son-in-law and he demanded higher price, but they have not done so. Under such circumstance, the defendant was purposely avoiding to execute the sale deed with ulterior motive, in spite of repeated demands. The plaintiffs are ready and willing to purchase the property and they have got sufficient means and they sent a legal notice on 7.9.1992 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed and for which, the defendant sent his reply with false allegations. Thereafter, on 30.9.1992, the defendant sent a notice cancelling the agreement and it was suitably replied by the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendant by filing a written statement, denying all the allegations in respect of the sale agreement, demand of higher price by him and the readiness of the plaintiffs in executing the agreement. In fact, even after receiving the plaintiffs ‘ notice dated 7.9.1992, the defendant, in his reply notice dated 14.9.1992, expressed his willingness to execute the sale deed, on receipt of the balance amount from the plaintiffs. Even then, the plaintiffs have not come forward to pay the balance amount till 30.9.1992, which resulted in the cancellation of the sale agreement. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Pending suit, the sole defendant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3.

5. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint, stating that the plaintiffs had no sufficient funds to purchase the property and they were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

6. On the basis of the above said pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues and two additional issues and in order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits A-1 to A-12 and on behalf of the defendants, the 2nd defendant examined herself as D.W.1 besides examining one Sellappan as D.W.2, but no document was marked. The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, had decreed the suit. As against the judgment of the trial Court, defendants 2 and 3 filed an appeal in A.S. No. 183 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Coimbatore, and the appellate Court had also dismissed the appeal by confirming the