The plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract in order to claim specific performance. Non-compliance with this statutory mandate can lead to dismissal of the suit. The conduct of the plaintiff should not fall foul of Sections 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act.

This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, as against the judgement and decree dated 12.4.2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, O.S.No.59 of 2005, which was 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. The epitome and the long and short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.59 of 2005 as against the defendant for specific performance of an agreement to sell with the following prayer:

"a) directing the first defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff over the suit property.

b) directing the defendant to deliver the suit property lawfully and in the event of refusal to do so, order to deliver of the suit property through process of law.

c) granting permanent injunction against the respondent from alienating the suit property to any one till the disposal of the suit.

d) directing the defendant to apy the cost hof the suit."

(extracted as such)

in respect of a land measuring 3.89 acres.

4. The gist and kernel of the averments in the plaint would run thus:

(i) Ex.A1-the agreement to sell dated 31.3.2002, emerged between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby the latter, who happened to be the owner of the land described in the schedule of the plaint, agreed to sell it in favour of the former, for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,50,000/-(Rupees nine lakhs fifty thousand), which amount was paid on the date of agreement to sell itself by the former to the latter.

(ii) No specific time for performance was stipulated, however, it is found specified therein that as and when the plaintiff would be demanding the defendant to execute the sale deed, the latter should execute the same.

(iii) It is the case of the plaintiff that Ex.A5-the notice, was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant calling upon him to perform his part of the contract, for that there was no response and no reply also was given. Hence, the suit.

5. In a bid to torpedo and pulverise the averments in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement, the pith and marrow of the same would run thus: (i) Ex.A1-the agreement to sell dated 31.3.2002 is a fabricated document. The plaintiff and the defendant had money transactions. The former, was a partner in the firm called 'Bharath Finance Arcot', which was running unauthorised chits; while so, the defendant was one of the subscribers to an unauthorised chit during the year 2000; at that time, the defendant was constrained to hand over the original sale deed, patta passbook and the kist receipts relating to the suit property and he also signed the blank stamp papers, blank cheques and blank pro-note formates and handed over the same to the plaintiff.

(ii) The plaintiff misused two such blank signed stamped papers and converted them into Ex.A1-the false agreement to sell and filed the suit. In fact, the defendant was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.40,000/-(forty thousand) for which 60% interest per annum was demanded by the plaintiff and because of that, rift ensued and ultimately resulted in the filing of the vexatious suit.

(iii) The trail Court framed the issues. Up went to the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on his side. On the defendant's side, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B11.

(iv) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

6. Challenging and impugning the judgement and decree of the trial Court, this appeal has been filed on various grounds.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would submit her arguements, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides were not considered properly by the lowe