The main legal point established is that under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence cannot be used to vary the terms of a written and registered document. Additionally, Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

The defendants in the original suit are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The suit O.S. No. 190 of 2004 was filed on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam for the relief of specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 17.04.2002. The suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal the decree of the trial court was confirmed. Hence, the appellants/ defendants are before this Court with the present Second Appeal.

2. The respondent herein filed the suit praying for the relief of specific performance directing execution of sale deed and for delivery of possession of suit property, based on the following averments made in the plaint:-

The appellants/ defendants who are the owners of the suit property, came forward to sell the same for a sum of Rs.60,000/-, received a sum of Rs.5000/- as advance and executed an agreement for sale on 17.04.2002, agreeing to execute a sale deed on payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.55,000/- within six months from the date of agreement. They also held out that there was no encumbrance on the property. Subsequently, the appellants/ defendants requested a further advance of Rs.15,000/- and the said amount was paid on 13.09.2002 for which the second appellant/ second defendant issued a receipt. Thus, the balance amount of consideration to be paid after 13.09.2002 was only Rs.40,000/-. Though the respondent/ plaintiff offered to pay the said amount and requested the appellants/ defendants to execute the sale deed within the time stipulated in the agreement, they were evading performance. Later on the respondent/ plaintiff came to know that the suit property along with the other properties had been mortgaged by the second appellant/ second defendant and obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from an Agricultural Co-operative Bank. When questioned about the encumbrance the appellants/ defendants promised to clear the encumbrance, but did not take effective steps to do the same before the due date. Hence, the respondent/ plaintiff had to issue a lawyer's notice on 10.10.2002 calling upon the appellants/ defendants to execute a sale deed and get it registered authorising the appellants/ defendants to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- towards the discharge of the debt due to the Agricultural Cooperative Bank. But the appellants/ defendants issued a reply notice dated 24.10.2002 containing false and untenable allegations. The respondent/ plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In case the court would so direct, instead of making payment of the balance sale consideration to the Agricultural Cooperative Bank, the respondent/ plaintiff would deposit the said amount into the court to be applied towards the discharge of the mortgage. In such circumstances, the respondent/ plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for specific performance.

3. The first appellant/ first defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the second appellant/ second defendant. The averments contained therein, in brief are as follows :-

Even on the date of agreement the respondent/ plaintiff was fully aware that the property was subject to a mortgage created in favour of the Agricultural Cooperative Bank. On the date of agreement itself the value of the property was more than Rs.1,00,000/-. With the specific understanding that the respondent/ plaintiff should discharge the mortgage loan, the suit agreement was entered into. In other words, the respondent/ plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property subject to the mortgage and not free from the said mortgage. The value of the property as fixed in the agreement was Rs.1,05,000/- and Rs.5000/- was paid to the appellants/ defendants on the date of agreement. The sale price agreed was not Rs.60,000/-. At the time of entering into the agreement, the Agricultural Co-operative Bank had announced certain concessions provided the payment was made within a certain date. The respondent/ pl