The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform its part of the contract, and the equitable nature of specific performance as a discretionary relief.

1. The Suit was filed for specific performance of the contract dated 24.07.2006 entered into by the defendants and the plaintiff.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff is a proprietor ship concern engaged in the business promoting and developing residential buildings, apartments etc. The defendants, who are the owners of the property at Door No.1/57 New No.1/61, Valliswaran Koil Street, Manapakkam Panchayat, Chennai 116, offered to sell the same to the plaintiff through certain mediators. The said mediators had introduced one Mr.Habibullah Khan @ M.H.Khan, who is the father of the 2nd defendant and father-in-law of the 1st defendant to the plaintiff and after negotiations the sale consideration for the suit property was fixed at Rs.59,50,000/-. Thereafter, the said Mr.M.H.Khan had handed over a set of copies of the documents of title relating to the suit property to Mr.J.Elan Chezhian, upon the receipt of Rs.10,000/- in cash from the plaintiff as a token advance for the sale of the property. On receipt of the preliminary opinion from their counsel, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit property. The counsel for the plaintiff also had advised the plaintiff to request for effecting mutation of the revenue records in the name of the defendants 1 and 2. After having verified the title, the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale on 24.07.2006, agreeing to purchase the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.59,50,000/- and had paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as advance.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 had acknowledged the receipt of the advance also. As per the said agreement the plaintiff had agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration, within 3 months from the date of the agreement, subject to compliance of certain conditions mentioned in the agreement itself. According to the plaintiff in order to purchase the suit property, the plaintiff had arranged for sale of the property belonging to the proprietrix, viz. Mrs. E.Thenmozhi, situate at No.5, Eswaran Colony, Sarwamangala Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai 61, for consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- on 27.07.2006.

4. According to the plaintiff, the property had originally belonged to the mother of the 2nd defendant and mother-in-law of the 1s defendant Mrs. Mumtaz Begum, who had purchased the property from one K.Soundararajan under the sale deed dated 13.06.1983. It is averred that the said Mumtaz Begum had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Mr.Ashok Kumar, who had transferred the property in favour of his three close relatives. It appears that the suit was filed by Mumtaz Begum in OS No.126 of 2001 before the District Munsif, Poonamalle, seeking to set aside the above three sale deeds and finally a compromise was struck between the parties in the said suit, pursuant to which the purchasers from Ashok Kumar, viz. D.Parsram, P.Mohini and P.Srichand had sold the property in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. Since the property originally belonged to the mother of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff apprehended that the four brothers of the 2nd defendant may stake a claim to the suit property at a later point of time, hence the plaintiff had insisted that affidavits should be obtained from the four brothers of the 2nd defendant, affirming the title of defendants 1 and 2 to the suit property before execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended that a Clause to that effect was incorporated in the very agreement of sale and the plaintiff would claim that the said Clause is a precondition for performance of the contract and despite several requests the defendants did not come forward to get the affidavits as required from the four brothers of the 2nd defendant.

5. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its part of the contract, the defendants by not providing the affidavits made it impossible for the plaintiff to conclu