R. Subramanian, J.

The defendant who suffered a decree for Specific Performance in O.S.No.643 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court, Coimbatore is the appellant. The suit was filed originally as O.S.No.946 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court Coimbatore was subsequently transferred to the Additional District Court and re-numbered as above.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale on 16.07.1997. Under the said agreement, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.5,40,000/- (Five Lakhs forty thousand only) and an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) was paid on the date of the execution of the agreement. A period of three months was fixed for performance of the contract. The defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff came to know that a money claim was pending and that there was an attachment before the judgment over the suit property in the suit relating to the money claim. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice seeking Specific Performance on 27.09.1997 which was replied to with false averments on 01.10.1997. The suit came to be filed on 15.10.1997 seeking Specific Performance.

3. The defendant resisted the suit contending as follows :-

The execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) as an advance was admitted. The defendant would deny the claim of the plaintiff that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. According to the defendant, though the defendant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiff would claim that the attachment has to be cleared before the execution of the sale deed. It is also contended by the defendant that the litigation relating to the money claim is false and it has been filed only to harass the defendant with ulterior motives. The defendant would also point out that even in the reply notice dated 01.10.1997, it has been very clearly stated that a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) could be kept as a deposit by the plaintiff, in order to satisfy the said money claim. The defendant had further contended that the husband of the plaintiff along with 2 others came to the defendants' house at about 8 P.M. on 08.10.1997 and threatened the defendant to execute the sale deed. On a consideration of the above pleadings, the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court II Coimbatore) frame the following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Specific Performance as prayed for?

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

4. To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled to?

4. The plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and also examined her husband Siva as PW-2. Ex.A-1 to A-18 were marked. The defendant examined herself as DW-1 and Ex.B-1 to B-3 were marked. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and it is the defendant who had suppressed the existence of an order of attachment in O.S.No.1636 of 1994. Since the execution of the agreement and the receipt of the advance was admitted, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief of Specific Performance. The Trial Court are also found that the suit was filed within three months period fixed under the agreement and as such there is no question of suit being barred by limitation. As a result of the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Judge decreed a suit as prayed for.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of defendant has preferred the above appeal. The following points emerge for determination in this appeal.

1. Whether the plaintiff had established that she has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract?

2. Whether the defendant is guilty of suppression of fa