The plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness as mandatory under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and good faith in the transaction is essential.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.97/91 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai dated 28.02.1994.)

1. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit filed for specific performance, the present appeal is filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-

The defendant has agreed to sell the suit property on 26.08.1987 for a total sale consideration of Rs.44,700/- and also received a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance and agreed to execute the sale deed within a period of four years. Thereafter, on 28.08.1989, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, in the month of January, 1991, the plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. But he has evaded the sale and hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 08.07.1991, which was replied with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

4. The case of the defendant is that the defendant had five daughters. The suit property and other properties were already partitioned to his daughters in the year 1987. The first item of the property and other properties were already sold to one Velukannan by the plaintiff and he is in possession of the property and the second item of the property alone is in possession of the defendant's wife. There was a dispute between the defendant and his brother, which was culminated into a criminal case. At this stage, the plaintiff being a son-in-law of the defendant, under the pretext of helping in the criminal case, obtained a signature from the defendant in blank papers and created the sale agreement. It is also denied that sale consideration has been received.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as prayed for?

(2) Whether the agreement dated 26.08.1987 is fabricated and is it true that the agreement came into existence after payment of Rs. 25,000/- as advance?

(3) Is it true that on 28.08.1989, the first defendant received a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards further sale consideration

(4) To what other reliefs?

6. Based on the above pleadings, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D8 were marked.

7. Based on the evidence and materials, the trial Court had dismissed the suit as against which, the present appeal is filed.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contented that the trial Court has not appreciated the entire facts properly and infact, the trial Court has failed to note that the defendant has denied the agreement evasively. The trial Court has failed to consider that the defendant stated that he put his thump impression only in a blank paper, whereas the agreement is written on stamped papers. Hence, it is the contention that the plaintiff has already paid the substantial sale consideration. Therefore, he is entitled for specific performance. Further, he submitted that time granted for executing the sale consideration as per the agreement is four years and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to purchase the property and he has also paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration. The trial Court has failed to consider these aspects and dismissed the suit. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

9. There was no representation for the respondents.

10. Considering the submissions and the pleadings, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract to seek equitable relief of specific performance?

(2) Whether the plaintiff has established the genuineness of the agreement dated 26.08.1987?

(3) To what other reliefs?

11. The suit has been laid to