The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract within the prescribed time is crucial for the enforceability of a sale agreement.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2014 made in O.S.No.80 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri by allowing the appeal.)

Judgment

1. The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The suit filed for specific performance to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed for 0.98 ½ cent of suit land and to refund the excess amount received as advance or in alternate to refund the entire earnest money with interest.

2. Considering the pleadings and the evidence, the trial Court granted the alternate relief of a money decree for Rs.10,06,750/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% till the realisation of the amount.

3. The appellant being aggrieved by not granting the main relief of specific performance has preferred this appeal.

4. The brief facts of the case as found in the pleadings:

Plaint:

The plaintiff entered into an sale agreement on 02/09/2009 in respect of the suit property for a sum of Rs 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) and paid advance of Rs.10,00,000/-. Seven months time was fixed for completion of the contract. The extent of land agreed to be sold was 2 acres along with a well and passage right. The plaintiff was ready and willing to complete the sale transaction and approached the defendants to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration. However, the defendants unnecessarily postponed the completion of the contract within the time fixed. Meanwhile, some 3rd parties started claiming right over portion of the suit property and filed suit for injunction. So, the plaintiff caused notice dated 30/03/2010 to the defendants and to those 3rd parties. The defendants, who are vendors, did not reply to the notice. One of the 3rd party purchaser replied asserting right over about 1.84 ½ acres of land out of 2.83 acres of land in S.No.210/18-A through sale deeds executed by the defendants. On the date of the suit agreement, defendants had only 0.98 ½ cents of land, but by misrepresentation entered into sale agreement for 2.00 Acres with the plaintiff and received Rs.10 lakhs as advance.

5. After receipt of the notice, the defendants approached the plaintiff and promised to sell the remaining extent of 0.98 ½ cents left unsold at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per cent and also agreed to refund the difference money Rs.2,61,250/-. Thus, the defendants, after retaining Rs.7,38,750/- from out of the advance of Rs.10,00,000/- received, ought to have returned the balance Rs.2,61,250/- and also executed the sale deed. Contrarily, the defendants failed to honour the said commitment which has lead to causing notice to the defendants on 03/10/2011 and subsequently, the suit for specific performance to register the sale deed for 0.98 ½ cents and refund Rs.2,61,250/- or in alternate to return the entire earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- paid towards part sale consideration, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

Written Statement:

6. The second defendant admits the suit property belong to one Mr.Pastor John William Carey (First defendant), who purchased it under a sale deed dated 31/10/1994. After his demise, defendants 2 to 5, who are his wife and children, succeeded the same and became the joint owners. Except this the other averments of the plaintiff is absolutely false.

7. The claim of the plaintiff that he entered into a sale agreement with the defendants on 02/09/2009 and advanced Rs.10,00,000/- as against the total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- for 2 acres of land are denied. The plaintiff had never ever approached the defendants and he was not at all ready and willing at any point of time to get the sale deed executed from the defendants. In fact, the alleged sale agreement with the plaintiff was executed only as a security for the loan, as the loan was discharged, there was no necessity t