The main legal point established in the judgment is that the genuineness of the sale agreement and the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform the contract are crucial factors in determining the entitlement to specific performance.

S.PALANIVELU,J.

1. The following are the averments contained in the plaint:

The defendant is absolute owner of the suit property. He entered into an agreement of sale with respect to his property with plaintiff on 22.5.2001 and the same was reduced to writing. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.15 lakhs and a sum of Rs.11 lakhs was paid to the defendant as advance by the plaintiff, which was received on the same date. Time is not the essence of contract, even though six months time was fixed for the performance of the contract. The defendant had already mortgaged the suit property with the Big Kancheepuram Co-operative Town Bank Limited and he had agreed to discharge the same within six months, but he did not do so. The plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The defendant was evading to execute the sale deed and has not chosen to discharge the mortgage debt in favour of the Bank. On 25.2.2004, he sent a lawyers notice calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance of Rs.4 lakhs. He sent a reply to notice on 01.03.2004 with false and defamatory allegations. Hence, this suit is filed for specific performance of contract.

2. In the written statement filed by the defendant the following are stated:

2.(a) The suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. It is strongly denied that the defendant entered into an agreement of sale of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 22.5.2001, that the sale price was fixed at Rs.15 lakhs, that it was registered on the same date, that the time is not essence of contract and that he received a sum of Rs.11 lakhs as advance from the plaintiff. It is also not correct to state that he agreed to discharge the mortgage loan in Big Kancheepuram Co-operative Town Bank limited within 6 months, that he has been evading to perform his part of contract and that the plaintiff has suppressed real facts.

2.(b) The defendant is doing retail kerosene business and also owner of tanker lorries. For the said business, he used to borrow money from the plaintiff from 1992 onwards for interest. In 2001, a sum of Rs.7,40,000/- was due from the defendant towards principal only. He was paying interest regularly. One fine morning, the plaintiff came with 10 rowdy elements in Ambassador and Sumo cars along with his relatives, took him forcibly and detained him in a room. Under threat and coercion, with the help of rowdy elements, the plaintiff obtained signatures of defendant in some documents, took him to the Registrar office and obtained his signature under compulsion. Since the plaintiff and his relatives are highly influential persons with the Registrar office, the Registrar has not questioned the defendant at the time of getting signature. The defendant has not executed any sale agreement as stated by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

3. After analysing the pleadings, oral evidence and documents, the learned Fast Track Court Judge decreed the suit by directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property after discharging mortgage in Big Kancheepuram Co-operative Town Bank and handover the possession of the property to the plaintiff within two months, with costs. Hence the defendant is before this Court with this appeal.

4. Points for consideration:

1. Whether the suit sale agreement transaction is genuine?

2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract from the inception?

3. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to?

Point No.1

5. The suit property is a house situate in Kancheepuram Town, which belongs to the appellant. It is stated that he agreed to sell the property to the respondent for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and entered into a registered sale agreement Ex.A.1 on 22.5.2001 on receipt of an advance of Rs.11 lakhs. It was agreed interalia that the appellant has to discharge the mortgage loan which he obtained in respe