The plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract, as per Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, in order to seek specific performance.

1. This appeal is focussed by the defendant in the suit, as against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu, in O.S.No.65 of 2006, which was one for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

(i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for specific performance based on the agreement to sell-Ex.A1 dated 20.9.2004, which emerged between the plaintiff on the one side and the defendant. Whereby, the latter agreed to sell in favour of the former the suit property for a total sale consideration to be calculated at the rate of Rs.6000/- per cent. An advance of Rs.five thousand was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The parties also agreed that depending upon the actual measurement available on ground, the price would vary. Even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant was dilly- dallying and shillyshallying with the matter and that he was dragging his feet. Whereupon, after exchange of notices, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:

"To pass a decree and judgment for specific performance of agreement of sale dt.20.9.2004 directing the defendant to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.10,21,000/- and in the event of his refusal or failure to comply with such decree or this Hon'ble court may itself be pleased to execute a sale deed (by deputing an officer of this Hon'ble Court) in favour of the plaintiff and (b) to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the property and (c) to direct the defendant to pay costs of the suit."

(ii) Challenging and refuting the averments in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement, the gist and kernal of it would run thus:

(a) As agreed in Ex.A1-the receipt, the plaintiff did not keep up his promise in paying a sum of Rs.95,000/- as advance per acre within a reasonable time and also in expressing his readiness to get the sale deed executed in his favour.

(b) The plaintiff did not have had the financial wherewithal to pay the sale consideration and he simply made the defendant to incur loss by waiting in vain; whereupon, the defendant was constrained to execute a Power Deed, whereby, his power agent sold the suit property in two moieties to third parties.

Accordingly, the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

(iii) Whereupon, the trial Court framed the issues.

(iv) During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A39 were marked. On the defendant's side, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

(v) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the defendant preferred this appeal on various grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, by placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(i) The trail Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the plaintiff, after paying a paltry sum of Rs.5000/- as token advance, virtually kept quiet and he indulged in chance litigation by filing the suit, without even depositing the amount agreed as per Ex.A1 in Court.

(ii) The question of the defendant measuring the suit property does not arise at all in this case, because the plaintiff admittedly purchased similar properties in the vicinity from the defendant's brother and he had full knowledge about the perfect title of the defendant and in such a case, the plaintiff's harping on the point that since the original title deeds etc., wer