The court emphasized the importance of proving readiness and willingness for specific performance and considered the presumption that time is not the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property.

1. The second appeal is filed by the defendant in a suit for specific performance filed in O.S.No.171 of 2002 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore.

2. In the plaint, the respondent / plaintiff alleged that the defendant offered to sell the suit property to him under an agreement of sale dated 16.12.1998 for a sale price of Rs.1,20,000/- and received a consideration of Rs.10,000/- as advance on the same day. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration within three months. The plaintiff claimed that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract as per the agreement. However, the defendant was evading the same. Nevertheless on 28.06.1999, the defendant received a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the part of sale consideration. However, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 26.06.2002, calling upon the defendant to receive the sale price and execute the sale deed. The said notice was not received by the defendant. Hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance.

3. The defendant denied the allegations that he had executed a sale agreement dated 16.12.1998 or that he received a further advance of Rs.40,000/-. It was contended by the defendant that the plaintiff had concocted and forged the document with the help of his henchmen to defraud the defendant. The suit property is worth about more than Rs.5 Lakhs and there was no necessity for the defendant to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also had no capacity to purchase the suit property. On these grounds, the defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit.

4. Issues on the Judgment:

On the said pleadings, two issues were framed by the Trial Court.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for?

2. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W-1, the attester as P.W.2 and PW-3 was the scribe and marked Exhibits A1 to A6. The agreement of sale executed was marked as Ex.A1 and the further part-payment of endorsement was marked as Ex.A2. The notice issued was marked as Ex.A3. While the defendant examined himself as DW-1, no document was marked. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit by decree dated 28.02.2007 mainly on the ground of limitation. On appeal, the first appellate Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal holding that the agreement of sale was proved and decreed the suit on 22.08.2008 granting the relief of specific performance. Being aggrieved, the defendant has filed the second appeal.

6. At the time of admission, the following questions of law were formulated under:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance of Ex.A-1 sale agreement when the plaintiff failed to aver and prove that he has been ready and willing to perform his part as per the sale agreement and when Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act specifically bars the said relief?

(ii) Whether the present suit for specific performance as instituted is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act when the same has not been filed within three years from the expiry of three months period fixed under Ex.A-1 sale agreement?

7. Points for consideration:

The judgment of the first Appellate Court is challenged in this second appeal. The appellant contended that having regard to the provisions of the Evidence Act, there is nothing improper in the first Appellate Court comparing the signatures of the first defendant in Exs.A1 and A2 with the admitted signatures in Ex.A5 and A6. The finding of the first appellate Court on such comparison held that there are no marked differences between two signatures. Being a finding of fact, it is not open to interfere in the second appeal. It was contended that the execution of the agreement of sale was duly proved by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 w