The judgment emphasizes the importance of readiness and willingness to perform a contract in specific performance cases, and highlights the requirement for clear and unambiguous agreements in property transactions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying against the order dated 16.08.2013 passed in O.S.No.48 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional District-cum-Sessions Court, Tiruppur.)

This appeal is by the plaintiff, who lost his suit for specific performance.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is the absolute property and jointly held by the defendants 1 to 5, one Mythili and Kothavalli. It is their ancestral property inherited through their grand father R.K.Subramaniam, who got the property under a partition deed dated 23/03/1952. The plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale with Mythili, Kothavalli and defendants 1 to 5 in respect of suit property measuring 3.50 acres, at the rate of Rs.4,50,000/- per acre. The total consideration was fixed as Rs.15,75,000/- and 6 months time was fixed for execution of the sale. On the date of agreement, the vendors received Rs.3,00,000/- and subsequently Mythili and Kothavalli received Rs.50,000/- on 10/03/2007 towards part sale consideration. Though the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance consideration and get the sale deed executed, the defendants 1 to 5 were evading to execute the sale under some pretext or other. After repeated demand, Mythili and Kothavalli alone came forward to execute the sale deed in respect of their share and their mother share, who has relinquished her right in favour of them. Accordingly, a sale deed was executed by them for an extent of 0.61 ¼ cents on 24/03/2008 in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The defendants 1 to 5, who are legally bound to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance sales consideration as per the agreement, in contra to their written agreement with the plaintiff, had collusively created a sale deed dated 05/06/2008 in favour of the defendants 6 to 9 for an extend of 1.47 3/8th acres in the suit survey land. The said sale deed is not true and valid. The defendants 6 to 9, who had purchased the property with knowledge of the existing sale agreement with the plaintiff are not bonafide purchasers for value. The agreement dated 23/01/2007 between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 will bind the defendants 6 to 9.

4. In this regard, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 01/07/2008 demanding the execution of the sale deed. The defendants gave reply dated 11/08/2008 containing false and untenable allegations denying the very execution of the sale agreement. For which, the plaintiff sent a rejoinder on 08/09/2008 which was again replied with false and incorrect averments by the defendants 1 to 5 and defendants 6 to 9 separately.

5. Claiming that, the plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay the balance consideration and stating that though the suit agreement was for 3.50 acres, since they have already purchased the share of Mythili and Kothavalli along with their mother’s share totally measuring 0.61¼ cents, the suit laid for specific performance to direct the defendants to execute sale deed for an extend of 3.06¼ acres of land morefully described in the plaint schedule.

6. Before the Trial Court, the defendants 1 to 5 remained exparte. The defendants 6 to 9 contested the suit and filed written statement pleading that the suit property is the property of one R.K.Subramaniam, who got the property through a partition in the year 1952. The said R.K.Subramaniam died intestate leaving behind four sons and four daughters namely Shanmugam, Ramanathan, Gurubaran, Kumaresan, Rukumani, Radhamani, Ponnammal and Bhuvaneswari. All his eight children are entitled for 1/8th share each in the suit property. Shanmugam S/o.Subramaniam died intestate leaving behind the defendants 1 to 3. Ramanathan another son of Subramaniam died intestate leaving behind his wife the 4th defendant, son the 5th defendant and daughters Kothavalli and Mythili.

7. Further they contended that, the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property belongs to defendants 1 to 5, Kothavallai and Mythil