The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the enforceability of the sale agreement were central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Thoothukudi, in O.S.No.29 of 2005.)

1. The defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants herein. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the suit Sale Agreement, dated 13.05.1994, wherein, the main relief in the suit is for specific performance of Sale Agreement which has culminated into Ex.A.4-Sale Agreement dated 11.03.1995. The defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the owners of the lay out.

2. The summary of the pleadings in the plaint is as under:-

On 13.05.1994, the plaintiff and the first defendant have entered into a sale agreement fixing the unit price of 1 cent at Rs.3,050/- and within one year, the sale has to be completed and the first defendant has to execute the Sale Deed either in favour of the plaintiff or the person nominated on by her. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale based on the representation of the first defendant that it is an approved lay out and out of 109 plots, he is willing to sell the property and on believing the same, the agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant and on 13.05.1994, a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- was paid by way of four cheques to be kept as a security and the four cheques are respectively for Rs.25,000/-, Rs.45,000/-, Rs.45,000/- and Rs.30,000/- and it is mutually agreed between the parties that the post dated cheques should not be encashed till the sale consideration is completed. Subsequently, on 30.05.1994, the first defendant has received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash and made an endorsement to that effect. In view of certain misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the said agreement could not be enforced as the first defendant has not produced the approved lay out plan. The plaintiff was waiting for the same. However, the first defendant has delayed the matter. Subsequently, on 11.03.1995, both the defendants 1 and 2 along with the third defendant have entered into a fresh agreement of sale wherein, newly price for a cent was fixed at Rs.3,150/- and defendants 1 and 2 have received a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and agreed to execute the Sale Deed on or before 31.03.1995 and on 25.03.1995, the defendants 1 and 2 have received a sum of Rs.93,000/- in cash and accordingly, made an endorsement on the second agreement dated 11.03.1995.

3. The legal notice issued by the second defendant dated 13.02.1996 are all false. The plaintiff is not aware of the suit in O.S.No.70 of 1995 filed between the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- on 13.05.1994, Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.05.1994, Rs. 1,40,000/- on 11.03.1995 and Rs.93,000/- on 25.03.1995. However, as the plaintiff came to know about the execution of Sale Agreement by the third defendant in favour of the fourth defendant, the same is not binding upon her. Thus, as per the Sale Agreement, after deduction of the amount already paid, namely, the sale consideration as per the sale agreement is Rs.18,52,085/-, advance amount paid by the plaintiff is Rs.6,48,000/-. The balance is Rs.12,04,085/-. In spite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants evaded execution of Sale Deed and hence, she has filed the about suit in O.S.No.29 of 2005.

4. The summary of the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2 is as under:-

The subject matter of the suit property consisting of 160 plots and on 13.05.1994, four cheques have been given as a security and there was a mutual agreement between the parties. While the plaintiff owned a land in Peelavattan Village in Millarpuram and for 25 cents, there was an agreement between the defendants and the plaintiff and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has been paid and the said consideration endorsing the suit sale agreement and in the endorsement found in the first agreement, there was no consideration because it is