In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 16 C of the Specific Relief Act.

1. The above appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.37 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court No.1, Erode.

2. The 2nd defendant is the appellant, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff, the respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 3 and 4 and the respondents 4 and 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.37 of 2004 for specific performance or in the alternative, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,97,870/- with interest and for creating a charge over the suit properties for the due payment of the suit claim with interest.

4. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

(i) According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant is his paternal grand father and the father of the 2nd defendant and husband of the 3rd defendant. The 4th defendant is the daughter of the 2nd defendant and grand daughter of the defendants 1 and 3.

(ii) The suit properties originally belonged to one Sellayammal, viz., the mother of the 1st defendant. By virtue of the registered settlement deed dated 13.08.1948 executed by the said Sellayammal in favour of the 1st defendant, he became the absolute owner of the suit property. Due to his old age, the 1st defendant was unable to personally cultivate the suit properties and wanted to sell it. After negotiations, the 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff and they entered into a written sale agreement on 11.07.2002 for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,51,000/-. Two years period was fixed for the completion of the sale. On the same day, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5,11,000/- as advance to the 1st defendant.

(iii) According to the plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff approached the 1st defendant several times and expressed his readiness to pay the balance sale consideration and take a sale deed at his cost. However, the 1st defendant was postponing the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant had executed 3 settlement deeds on 30.01.2003 in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 in respect of the suit properties. The defendants 2 to 4 were well aware of the valid sale agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the said settlement deeds have been collusively created to defeat the plaintiff's right.

(iv) The plaintiff sent a lawyer's notice to the defendants. The defendants 1 and 2 issued a reply on 19.11.2003 containing false allegations. The 1st defendant had falsely alleged that the signatures contained in the sale agreement are not that of his and that the said signatures are forged. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

5. The brief case of the defendants 1 and 2 is as follows:-

(i) According to the defendants, the plaintiff has falsely alleged that ever since the date of execution of the agreement, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendants also denied the averment that the plaintiff has approached the 1st defendant several times and expressed his readiness to pay the balance sale consideration and take the sale deed at his costs.

(ii) According to the 1st defendant, he has not received any amount from the plaintiff towards the sale of the property and the plaintiff does not have the source of income to pay such huge amount as advance of sale consideration.

(iii) According to the defendants, the suit agreement is a forged document and the plaintiff has created the said agreement only with a view to compel the 1st defendant to settle some properties in his favour. In these circumstances, the defendants 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, 4 witnesses were examined and 10 documents, Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined, however, no document was marked. An Officer of the Foren