The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract for entitlement to specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

A. The Appeal :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.59 of 2013, passed by the II-Additional District and Session Judge, Erode, in and by which, the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the suit agreement was decreed by refusing the prayer for specific performance and granting the alternative relief to repay the sum of Rs.14,96,267/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of Decree, and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum, on the advance amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, until repayment.

B. The Case of the Plaintiff:

2. The suit property absolutely belongs to the first defendant, having purchased the same through a registered Sale Deed, dated 21.01.2010. The defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 27.02.2011, agreeing to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, and received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, as advance. At the time of agreement, the first defendant had represented that he has created a mortgage by depositing the original title deed with one S.C. Manickkam, by borrowing a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Again the first defendant, approached the plaintiff and persuaded him to pay another sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, so as to clear the existing mortgage. On 11.04.2011, the plaintiff paid a further sum of Rs,5,00,000/-, and the time for performance of the agreement was extended by 15 months from that date. A due endorsement was also made on the rear side of the agreement, dated 27.02.2011. Thereafter, even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, colluding with the second defendant, the first defendant executed a Power of Attorney on 21.04.2011 in favour of the second defendant and in turn, the second defendant created a sham and nominal document purporting to be a Sale Deed on 29.11.2011, thereby, selling the property to the third defendant. The first defendant also had filed an Insolvency Petition in I.P.No.5 of 2012, and the plaintiff had also taken steps to implead himself as a party in the Insolvency proceedings before the II-Additional Sub-Court, Erode. Therefore, the plaintiff passed a pre-suit notice on 14.06.2002, thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2013, was filed for specific performance.

C. The Case of the Defendants :

3. The suit was resisted by the second defendant by filing a written statement by denying all the allegations and submitting that the first defendant executed a registered Power of Attorney, in favour of the second defendant to sell the suit property, which was registered as Document No.657 of 2011, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Erode, on 21.04.2011. Pursuant to the said lawful power, the property was sold to the third defendant for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. On 29.11.2011, the same was registered as Document No.7742 of 2011, thereafter, the possession was delivered to the third defendant.

3.1 The third defendant filed a separate written statement, again denying the allegations and reiterating that pursuant to the lawful power, the defendant purchased the suit property and that she was a bona-fide purchaser for value and as such purchase of the suit property was in good faith. She had no knowledge about the alleged sale agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant.

D. The Issues & The Trial:

4. On the strength of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 27.02.2011?

(2) Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief of declaration in respect of the sale deed dated 29.11.2011 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant ?

(4) Whether the 3rd defendant is the bonafide purchaser ?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the alternative relief from the from the 1st defendant by way of repayment of Rs.14,96