JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal Suit is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.37 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram.)

1. The lis on hand is filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram in O.S.No.37 of 2013.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was instituted by the appellant for the relief of specific performance.

3. The facts, in nutshell, to be considered in this appeal suit are that based on the suit Sale Agreement dated 03.06.2008 with regard to the suit property, the appellant/plaintiff averred that he paid substantial advance amount of Rs.12 lakhs and fulfilled his part of the contract.

4. When the appellant/plaintiff had fulfilled his part of the contract as per the terms of the agreement and requested the respondents to execute the sale by receiving the balance sale consideration, there was a refusal blatantly, which resulted in institution of the suit for specific perform by the appellant/plaintiff.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff reiterated that the case on hand is a classic case where the appellant/plaintiff had paid the substantial advance amount, so as to establish his bona fide in order to purchase the property by fulfilling the terms of contract entered into between the parties on 03.06.2008. In view of the fact that the appellant/plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, it is the respondent, who disagreed and expressed his unwillingness to perform his part of the contract, which resulted in institution of the civil suit.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant is of the concrete opinion that it is a fit case for grant of specific performance and the Trial Court on erroneous appreciation of the documents and the evidences, declined the relief of specific performance.

7. The Trial Court arrived a conclusion that the appellant had not established his readiness and willingness, which is the essential principles for the grant of relief of specific performance. The Trial Court has miserably failed to consider the fact that the substantial payment of advance amount of Rs.12 lakhs paid by the appellant to the respondents was admitted by the parties in the evidence. When the payment of substantial amount of advance was admitted by the parties and the appellant was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration during the relevant point of time and made a request for execution of sale, then the Trial Court ought to have granted the relief of specific performance in favour of the appellant.

8. At the outset, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant/plaintiff established before the Trial Court that the agreement was a valid one. The appellant paid the substantial advance amount of Rs.12 lakhs, which was admitted by the respondents and he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration during the relevant point of time and therefore, the appellant had established the principles to be followed for the grant of relief of specific perform. Thus, the appeal is to be allowed.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents strenuously disputed the contentions by stating that admittedly, the advance amount of Rs.12 lakhs was paid by the appellant to the respondents. Admittedly, the suit Sale Agreement was signed by the parties to the lis. However, the appellant had not established his readiness and willingness and he was delaying the execution as well as the payment of balance sale consideration, which resulted in non-compliance of the suit Sale Agreement.

10. The sequence of dates as well as the conduct of the appellant and the manner in which he acted with reference to the terms of the agreement is unambiguous that the principl