The main legal point established is that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, and the absence of inordinate delay in seeking specific performance.

1. This regular appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.9.2009 and made in O.S.No.387 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore.

2. Having been dissatisfied with the decreeing of the suit, the defendant has knocked the door of this court by way of this appeal.

3. For easy reference and also for the sake of convenience, the appellant may hereinafter be referred to as the defendant and the respondent be referred to as the plaintiff wherever the context so require.

Background facts:

4. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant on 21.6.2002 in respect of the suit property, under a registered sale agreement, for a sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid as advance on the same day and on receipt of the balance of sale consideration, the sale deed shall be executed on or before 20.6.2005.

5. On the date of agreement, as the defendant had asked a further sum of Rs.50000/- to settle some urgent liabilities, the said amount was paid by the plaintiff, for which the defendant had executed a promissory note separately.

6. The defendant had also executed a possession receipt in respect of the suit property referring the above transactions. She had handed over all the title deeds in original including the patta pass book to the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from 21.6.2002 till date.

7. Since the husband of the plaintiff is a salaried person, it was difficult for the plaintiff to mobilise the funds and therefore, they sought for time for the execution of the sale deed. As the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment, she has been harvesting the coconut yield from 21.6.2002 onwards.

8. On 27.10.2003, when the plaintiff herself had engaged in the supervision work along with her farm servants, the defendant had accompanied with one Jayabal Gounder and Dharmaraj @ Raju and entered into the suit property and they wanted to harvest the coconuts in the suit property, but such attempt was thwarted and therefore, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.480 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi and obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.1591 of 2003. Since the relief was prayed till 20.6.2005 and such time was over, again the plaintiff filed the present suit.

9. On 2.3.2004, the plaintiff had executed a power of Attorney authorising her sister-in-law to take steps for specific performance of the agreement, dated 21.6.2002. Thereafter, the power agent had dug a well and a building was erected with tiled roof at a cost of Rs.2.00 lakhs, which necessitated the power agent to stay in the land for irrigation, cultivation and maintenance and therefore, she had requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. As there was no response, she issued a notice, dated 13.5.2005 calling for the defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration. Hence, the present suit.

10. It is admitted in the written statement filed by the defendant that the sale agreement executed in favour of the plaintiff is true and the consideration fixed is also true. The receipt of Rs.50000/- on the evening of the agreement date and the execution of possession receipt are denied.

11. When admittedly the balance of sale consideration is due to her from the plaintiff, there is no necessity for the defendant to execute any promissory note and borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the promissory note is a rank forgery one and the so-called possession receipt is also a fabricated one.

12. The defendant had no intention to part with the property before the completion of the sale and she also did not give possession to the plaintiff at any point of time.

13. The cursory reading of the sale agreement would clearly show that the possession is to be given only at the time of the execution of the sale deed. When t