JUDGMENT :

The defendant in O.S.No.246 of 2008 has come up with this appeal. Challenge is to the reversal of the judgment of the trial court by the appellate court and grant of a decree for specific performance.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 14.12.2004 claiming that the defendant has agreed to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- and received an advance of Rs.50,000/-. Claiming that even after issuance of notice, the defendant has not come forward to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff sought for the relief as aforesaid.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the agreement itself was not intended to be acted upon as an agreement of sale and the same was executed as security for a loan transaction.

4. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exts.A.1 to A.4 were marked. One Raja was examined as P.W.2. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3.

5. The learned trial Judge rejected the contention in defence that the agreement was not intended to be acted upon and held that the agreement is true and valid. It however faulted the plaintiff for not being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated under the agreement. Noting that there was a huge delay of nearly 3 years in issuing a demand notice seeking specific performance itself, the trial court came to the above conclusion. Therefore, the trial court rejected the claim for specific performance and ordered refund of advance.

6. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.39 of 2013. The appellate court, upon re-consideration of the evidence on record, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and concluded that the plaintiff had filed the suit within the time stipulated under the Limitation Act and therefore, he cannot be non-suited for not being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Upon the said conclusion, the lower appellate court granted a decree for specific performance. Hence, this Second Appeal.

7. I have heard Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.D.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.P.Velmurugan, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. The following question of law has been framed by this Court at the time of admission:

“Whether the lower appellate court has not committed an error in reversing the well considered finding of the trial court on the question of pleading and proving readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in accordance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?”

9. Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that though agreement fixed the period of 6 months for performance of the contract, the plaintiff chose to issue notice demanding performance only on 11.12.2007 i.e nearly 3 years after the date of the agreement. He would also point out that the suit was filed on 02.06.2008 just a day prior to the expiry of limitation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the trial court was justified in concluding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He would also fault the appellate court for reversing the well considered judgment and decree of the trial court.

10. Contending contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that mere delay in filing the suit for specific performance cannot be a ground to non-suit the plaintiff for readiness and willingness. He would also submit that once the plaintiff has filed the suit within the limitation provided under the Limitation Act, he would be entitled to a decree for specific performance. In support of his submission, the learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Lakshmikantham Vs. Devaraji (2019(3) RCR (Civil) 814 )

11. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel on either side.

12. Undisputabl