The burden of proof lies on the party disputing the validity of a written contract, and the conduct of the parties and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness are essential for specific performance relief.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 06.02.2017 made in OS.No.56 of 2010 on file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry.)

1. The Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, dated 06.02.2017 made in OS.No.56 of 2010.

2.The appellant is the defendant, against whom, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance. The said suit was decreed on 06.02.2017. Aggrieved over that this Appeal has been preferred.

3. The Short Facts of the Case, as contained in the plaint are as follows:

The defendant is the owner of the suit property; he agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and executed a sale agreement on 25.06.2007. As per the sale agreement, the sale price was fixed at Rs.21,00,000/- and on the date of the sale agreement itself, the defendant received Rs.20,00,000/- as advance. For receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and executing the sale deed nine months' time was agreed.

3.1. Despite the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract by receiving the same and executing the sale deed. However, at request of the defendant, a further six months time was extended on 22.03.2008. On the same day itself, the defendant received an additional part sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- and due endorsement was made on the back page of the sale agreement itself. Since the defendant evaded to execute the sale deed under some pretext or the other, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 25.04.2009 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- and to execute the sale deed. The said notice was returned with the endorsement 'not claimed'. After issuance of the notice, the defendant handed over the original title deeds to the plaintiff, but, evaded to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance.

3.2 The defendant filed a written statement by contenting as hereunder:

The defendant did not agree to sell the suit property as stated by the plaintiff; the value of the property would be not less than Rs. 1 crore and in the year 2007 itself it was worth about Rs.60,00,000/- The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively from the plaintiff on 25.06.2007 for purchasing a land and for developing the same into house plots. For the said loan, the plaintiff insisted the defendant to deposit two original title deeds in his favour. Hoping that he would redeem the title deeds, he had given his title deeds pertaining to the suit property as collateral security for the loan availed by him. The plaintiff has also got two agreements of sale from the son of the defendant namely Mr.Karunakaran in the year 2007 for taking the additional loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/-. In total, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The plaintiff is doing money lending business and is in the habit of demanding execution of sale agreements from his borrowers the defendant never received Rs.75,000/- on 22.03.2008 as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant was forced to sign at the back of the sale agreement after the expiry of nine months. The defendant was paying interest for the loan amount. When the defendant defaulted to pay interest, the plaintiff had filed this suit in OS.No.77 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore through his son for specific performance by suppressing all the material facts. The defendant is ready to repay the loan availed by him with interest and the suit shall be dismissed.

3.3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the followin