Validity of the sale agreement and readiness of the plaintiff to perform the contract.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.80 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, dated 22.08.2017)

1. This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, dated 22.08.2017 in O.S.No.18 of 2014. The appellant is the defendant.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance based upon a registered sale agreement dated 18.09.2012 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) in respect of the suit property. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) was paid as an advance amount on the date of the sale agreement itself and two years time period was agreed for paying the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and get the sale deed registered. The plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only); on 13.07.2014, he issued a legal notice calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed, since the defendant refused to execute the sale deed in accordance with the terms of the sale agreement he has filed this suit for specific performance.

3. The defendant contested the suit by alleging that the sale agreement was not executed with an intention to convey the suit property. Despite a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) was paid as an advance on the date of the sale agreement, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to return the said amount subsequently by stating that he was not interested in purchasing the suit property. However, the plaintiff agreed to consider the said amount as loan and demanded the defendant to return the same with interest. Even after the defendant paid back the amount, the plaintiff refused to cancel the sale agreement and filed the suit by suppressing the real facts.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the sale agreement dated 18.09.2012 alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant is true, valid and legal?

2. Whether the defendant had executed the suit sale agreement dated 18.09.2012 as security for the loan transaction?

3. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to pay the balance sale price and get the sale deed executed and registered?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance?

5. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

5. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.3 and four documents were marked as Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.4.

6. At the conclusion of the trial and after considering the materials available on record, the learned trial Judge has decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved over that, the defendant has preferred this Appeal Suit.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and disbelieved the contentions of the defendant; no sale consideration was received by the defendant and hence, it is wrong on the part of the court to come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) was received by the appellant/ defendant on the date of sale agreement itself and hence, the appeal should be allowed.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the appellant/defendant has admitted the execution of Ex.A.1 sale agreement and also passing of sale consideration in his written statement itself; hence he is estopped from sayi