The central legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract within the specified time frame is essential for specific performance. The valid cancellation of the sale agreement by the defendant further influenced the court's decision.

In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2014 on the file of II Additional District Court, Ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2013 passed in O.S. No.130 of 2007, on the file of Subordinate Court, Ranipet.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for specific performance.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property belongs to the defendant and the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 10.06.2005 to sell the suit property in his favour for a total consideration of Rs.2,11,515/- and received a sum of Rs.75,000/- on the date of agreement and as per the terms of the said agreement, the plaintiff has to pay a further sum of Rs.25,000/- during the month of July 2005, but, the defendant refused to receive the same and subsequently, the defendant issued a legal notice dated 24.08.2006 and on receipt of which, the plaintiff immediately met the defendant and offered to pay the entire sale consideration, but, once again, the defendant evaded to receive the same and the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in his favour and has been repeatedly requesting the defendant with reference to the same, however, it is only the defendant who had been evading to complete the sale transaction by receiving the balance amount, hence, the plaintiff caused the issuance of a legal notice dated 22.12.2006 to the defendant to comply with the terms of the sale agreement. The defendant received the said notice and not responded to the same, hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessiated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and also it is true that the defendant had entered into a sale agreement on 10.06.2005 with the plaintiff to sell the suit property and received an advance of Rs.75,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of sale agreement. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the plaintiff was supposed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of the balance sale consideration on 10.07.2005 and the rest of the balance sale consideration on or before January 2006. However, the plaintiff had never bothered to pay either Rs.25,000/- nor the balance sale consideration on or before January 2006 and it is false to state that the plaintiff had offered to pay Rs.25,000/- in the month of July 2005 and the defendant was available in his address and if really the plaintiff had been interested in the completion of the sale, he would have contacted the defendant and sort out the matter and it is only the plaintiff who had been evading to complete the sale transaction for the reason that funds were struck up and he was not in a position to arrange the payment of balance sale consideration. The defendant after waiting endlessly for nearly 7 months and as the plaintiff had failed to come forward to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction, issued a legal notice on 24.08.2006 cancelling the sale agreement and directed the plaintiff to take back the advance amount of Rs.75,000/- within 7 days on receipt of the said notice. The plaintiff received the abovesaid notice on 01.09.2006 and failed to reply nor meet the defendant and it is false to state that the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 22.12.2006 calling upon the defendant to comply with the terms of the sale agreement and the defendant sent a reply notice on 29.12.2006 to the plaintiff's counsel stating all the above facts and called upon the plaintiff to withdraw the notice as time had elapsed and directed the plaintiff to take back the advance amount. The couns