The plaintiff's demonstration of readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, was crucial in determining the entitlement to specific performance.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgement and Decree dated 30.01.2019 made in A.S.No.76 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 20.06.2013 made in O.S.No.832 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.)

The unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below is the appellant before this Court. The suit in question is one seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 12.10.2003. The facts in brief necessary for disposing of the above Second Appeal is herein below narrated. The parties are referred to in the same litigative status as before the Trial Court.

2. The suit schedule property originally belonged to the defendant. On 12.10.2003, the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff promising to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,600/-. On the date of the agreement, the defendant had received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as advance and the time for performance was fixed at 3 months from the date of the agreement. Thereafter, on 10.01.2004 the time was extended for a further period of three months and it was mentioned in the endorsement that the defendant would obtain the necessary approval from the Town Panchayat for selling the property considering the fact that the suit property is situate in an unapproved layout. Once again, on 08.04.2004 the parties have agreed for extension and a sum of Rs.500/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The agreement was extended by a further period of three months. The final extension was made on 12.07.2004, whereunder the time for performance was extended by a period of six months.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had agreed to get necessary approval from the Town Panchayat with respect to the property mentioned and since the defendant was not forthcoming with the approval, the plaintiff was unable to go ahead with the sale. The specific case of the plaintiff is that she is ready and willing from the date of the agreement to conclude the same and the same was awaiting the defendant getting the approval from the Town Panchayat and it was he who was postponing the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff had issued legal notice dated 22.03.2007 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed.

4. However, the defendant had sent a reply contending false and frivolous contentions and enclosing a demand draft constituting the advance amount. The defendant had contended that he was returning the advance amount since he was unable to get panchayat approval. Thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a rejoinder dated 05.04.2007 returning the demand draft and stating that she was willing to get property registered and get the panchayat approval at her risk. After receiving the rejoinder, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff had filed the above suit on 12.04.2007.

5. The defendant had filed his written statement inter alia admitting that the parties had entered into an agreement of sale but however contended that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to proceed with the sale and further the plaintiff had no means to complete the sale agreement. Therefore, it is the contention of the defendant that the sale agreement had been cancelled and the claim is barred by limitation.

6. The learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as agreed by the 1 defendant on 12, 10. 2003

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed by her?

3. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled ?”

7. Though the Court had not framed any issues with reference to readiness and willingness there is a discussion about the same. The Trial Court had taken note of the fact that the suit has been filed by