In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and if the signature is disputed, the burden of proof lies on the party disputing the signature to prove it as forged.

1. Defendant has preferred this appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance.

2. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is as follows:

(i) On 25.01.2006, the defendant entered into an unregistered sale agreement with the plaintiff to sell the 'A' schedule property by fixing the sale prize at Rs.13,500/- per cent and the total sale consideration at Rs.18,22,500/- for 1.35 acres of land and the plaintiff has paid Rs.3,00,000/- as advance. As per the sale agreement, the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration within three months from the date of execution of the sale agreement. The plaintiff has paid a further sum of Rs.4,10,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- on 18.03.2006 and 30.07.2006 respectively and the same were endorsed by the defendant on the backside of the sale agreement. Thus, the time of three months mentioned in the sale agreement to perform their part of contract was not considered as essence of contract by both the parties.

(ii) On enquiry with the revenue official, the plaintiff came to know a shortfall of an extent of 0.16.0 Hectares in the agreed 'A' schedule property which was acquired by the National Highways Authorities and therefore, the actual land available with the defendant is only 1.05 acre alone, which is described as 'B' schedule property.

(iii) The plaintiff is always ready and willing to purchase the 'B' schedule property by calculating Rs.13,500/- per cent and the total sale consideration amount at Rs.14,17,500/-. The defendant not only refused to receive the amount, but also demanded higher amount of Rs.25,000/- per cent. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 15.08.2006, to which the defendant issued a reply notice dated 18.08.2006 with false and untenable averments. Moreover, the defendant is making arrangements to sell the proprty to third party so as to defeat and deny the right of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:-

Execution of sale agreement dated 25.01.2006 and the receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- as earnest money were accepted. But it was specifically agreed between the parties that the time should be intended as the essence of contract. The endorsement of payment and signatures on the rear side of the agreement dated 18.03.2006, 30.07.2006 and 31.07.2006 were denied. The plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and to show his bonafide, the plaintiff has not cared to deposit the remaining balance into the credit of the proceedings. The value of the properties is several times high more than as mentioned in the said agreement. The entire proceeding is based on discretionary relief, remedy, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The defendant never attempted to sell the property to third parties. The plaintiff has to pay advalorem court fee on the market value. The plaintiff without exhausting his remedy approached the Court with false and frivolous grounds. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Judge framed necessary issues for consideration. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 while examining five more witnesses as PW2 to PW6 and marked eighteen documents. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked one document on his side. The Trial Court, on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the present appeal has been filed.

5. The arguments advanced by Mr. M.V.Muralidharan, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mrs. S.Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent are heard in detail. The materials available on record are also perused.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no agreement of sale in respect of 'B' schedule property and if the extent and price differs, the res