The court emphasized the importance of proving readiness and willingness to perform the contract in specific performance cases, and the discretionary power of the court under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 20.8.1997 and that suit was dismissed and the Appeal filed by the appellant herein was also dismissed. Hence, this Second Appeal.

3. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he entered into an agreement of sale, dated 20.8.1997 with the respondent, for purchasing the suit property for a sum of Rs.60,000/-and on the same date, advance of Rs.50,000/-was paid and acknowledged in the agreement of sale and for payment of balance sum of Rs.10,000/-, time was given upto 20.8.2000 and the appellant was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and offered that amount to the respondent. As the respondent was dragging on the matter, the appellant sent a notice, dated 21.7.2000, informing the respondent his readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed and requested the respondent to come and execute the sale deed, after receiving the balance sale consideration. As the respondent did not come forward, the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale.

4. The respondent contested the suit stating that she never executed any agreement of sale, as alleged by the appellant and she was a Subscriber in a Chit Company, viz., Vetri Murugan Finance run by the appellant and she owed certain amounts to the said Finance Company and to secure that amount, the appellant obtained her signature in various bond papers and misused those papers, as if, an agreement of sale was entered into between the parties and the document executed by her was only a security and it was never intended to be acted upon as an agreement of sale and the appellant also set up his brother-in-law P.Ramasamy, who also filed a suit in O.S.No.571 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal and she never received Rs.50,000/- from the appellant, either as a loan or as agreement of sale and hence, she is not liable to execute the sale deed.

5. The appellant examined three witnesses to prove his case and the respondent examined two witnesses, including herself to prove that she never executed the agreement of sale.

6. The Trial Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the agreement of sale, dated 20.08.1997 was not executed by the respondent and the respondent proved that the agreement of sale was executed as security towards the lability payable to the Finance Company and it was only a loan transaction or given as security and the appellant did not prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and therefore the appellant is not entitled to the decree for specific performance and dismissed the suit.

7. The First Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the Appeal.

8. Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below erred in holding that Ex.A.2 was not an agreement of sale and it was not executed by the respondent knowing fully well about the contents and it was a loan transaction and hence, he submitted that the judgment passed by the Courts below calls for interference.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the respondent is also not entitled to plead that the agreement of sale was executed as security and under the document, no amount was received. The respondent is estopped from taking such a plea, by virtue of Section 92 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel further submitted that once the respondent fails to prove that Ex.A.2 is a loan transaction and not an agreement of sale, the appellant is entitled to the relief of specific performance and time is not essence of contract in respect of immovable property and as per the agreement of sale, 3 years' time was prescribed for paying the balance sale consideration and before the expiry of the 3 years period, notice was issued by the appellant an