The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a party seeking specific performance to prove the genuineness and validity of the sale agreement, as well as their possession and enjoyment of the property, and the importance of establishing readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2004 made in A.S.No.5 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2001 made in O.S.No.76 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur.)

This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2004 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2001 made in O.S.No.76 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

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

3.1. The suit is filed for specific performance and permanent injunction. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the first defendant were the members of a joint Hindu family and the suit properties were also their joint family properties. They divided their shares in the joint family properties by a partition deed dated 10.03.1983. Accordingly, the suit properties were allotted to the first defendant. The third defendant is the minor and he represented by the second defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 were decided to sell the property to the plaintiff for the sale consideration of Rs.36,000/-. The first defendant received a sum of Rs.12,400/- as advance from the plaintiff, at the time of executing the agreement. It was also agreed that the plaintiff should discharge the loan due to Tiruvallur Land Development Bank amounting to Rs.3,600/-.

3.2. Further the first defendant had also executed an equitable mortgage deed dated 28.01.1986, in favour of one Saroja ammal, W/o. Nandagopal Naidu for Rs.20,000/-. On 28.01.1986, the first defendant for himself and also for the minor son third defendant executed a letter whereby, the suit property was delivered to the mortgagee to be enjoyed in lieu of interest. Therefore, the possession of the suit property was delivered to the said mortgagee. Thereafter, the mortgagee cultivated the suit property and also raised paddy and harvested the same in the month of April 1986. It was agreed by the terms of agreement that the plaintiff should discharge the above said mortgage. Accordingly, the plaintiff discharged the said sum of Rs.20,000/- on 09.08.1986 and also made endorsement on the mortgage deed. Accordingly, the mortgage deed duly discharged and handed over to the plaintiff.

3.3. In fact, the crops situated in the suit property valued at Rs.6,000/- and the mortgagee received the said sum and also delivered the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Hence from 09.08.1986, the plaintiff alone is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiff cultivated the suit property by drawing water from the well belonging to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants received major portion of the sale consideration out of Rs.36,000/- such as, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.12,400/- as advance and Rs.20,000/- paid to the mortgagee to discharge the mortgage. The balance sale consideration payable by the plaintiff is only Rs.3,600/- that too towards loan due to the Tiruvallur Land Development Bank. In fact, the plaintiff has paid Rs.6,000/- to the mortgagee for crops and it was excess to the sale consideration.

3.4. One Renganatha Naidu and his family members are the owners of the land adjacent to the suit property. The fourth defendant is the daughter-in-law of the said Renganatha Naidu. They had full knowledge about the enjoyment of the suit property by the mortgagee viz., Saroja ammal in lieu of interest and also aware of the agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff by discharging the mortgage and subsequent possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. While being so, with the view to