The court emphasized the importance of consensus ad idem in a contract and the need for parties to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

1. This second appeal arises against the decree and judgment of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry dated 29.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.35 of 2004 confirming the Judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry dated 08.04.2004 in O.S.No.96 of 2002.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

On 22.05.1978 the defendant entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the suit property for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.5000/- was paid. As per the sale agreement, it was agreed that the litigation was pending in respect of the suit property and if the defendant succeeds in the suit and becomes absolute owner of the same, he would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff receive the balance sale consideration within a period of three months from the date when the defendant becomes the absolute owner. The plaintiff was a tenant in respect of the suit property and he was paying a rent of Rs.720/- per month, of which, he was paying 5/12 share in the rent to each of the defendant and his brother and 2/12 share to the sister Ratna Mary. In pursuance of the agreement, the plaintiff was paying rent for the suit property only to the defendants brother Louis Sinnaya Arkiasamy and his sister Ratna Mary in respect of their respective shares from the date of the impugned sale agreement. But he did not pay the share of rent due to the defendant since then. The defendant filed HRCOP No.63 of 1996 which was dismissed against which he preferred M.A.No.27 of 1997 which was also dismissed confirming the trial Courts order. The defendant sent a notice informing that he has become absolute owner of the suit property in terms of the release deed dated 30.11.2001 executed by his elder brother and legal heirs of his sister Ratna Mary. Since the defendant gave a evasive reply and refused to execute sale deed, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for specific performance.

3. The gist and essence of written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:-

The suit is barred by limitation. Since the plaintiff kept quiet all along 24 years, the suit is not maintainable. The case has been compromised and compromise decree passed on 22.05.1978 in O.S.No.1 of 1978 which is referred to in the alleged agreement of sale dated 22.05.1978. The agreement is uncertain, infinite and is speculative and it cannot be enforceable. As per the terms of the decree in O.S.No.1 of 1978, no co-owner can enter into any agreement to sell or create any encumbrance over the property without the knowledge and consent, participation and permission of the other two co-owners. At the time of execution of the sale agreement, the defendant is not an exclusive owner of the property. The plaintiff as a tenant stopped paying rent to the defendant from 22.05.1978. However, he paid rent to his elder brother and L.Rs. of his elder sister (deceased) till 01.12.2001. On 30.11.2001, the defendants elder brother and legal heirs of the deceased elder sister executed release deed in respect of the suit property. Since the plaintiff has not paid rent to the defendant, he filed HRCOP No.23 of 2002 on the ground of wilful default and personal occupation which was dismissed. The sale agreement is sham and nominal. At the time when the agreement was created, the defendant was a medical college student with no means to support himself. All his properties were at that time seized, sealed and attached by the income tax authorities on 01.03.1978 in the course of a raid conducted in his house. The plaintiff was working as part-time accountant and bill collector in the evening hours under the defendant at the time of creation of the alleged agreement. The plaintiff who was aware of the critical financial condition of the defendant after the income tax raid, gave loan of Rs.5000/-in the month of May 1978 and taking undue advantage of the critical financial condition of the defendant, the plaintiff created t