The plaintiff's failure to prove willingness to perform the contract led to the grant of the alternate relief of refund of the advance money.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 12.04.2018 made in OS.No.43 of 2010 on file of the District Court, Thiruvannmalai.)

1. This Appeal suit has been preferred by the defendant / appellant challenging the judgement and decree dated 12.04.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Thiruvannamlai, made in OS.No.43 2010.

2. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the relief of specific performance.

3. Brief facts of the case, as revealed in the plaint and the written statement, are as hereunder:

(i) The defendant, her husband and her father-in-law Mr.N.S Subramanian were the tenants at Door No.10/3, Manakula Vinayagar Street, Thiruvannamalai; the defendant purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 07.02.2007 under document No.340 of 2007 with the money arranged by her father in-law; the defendant was in possession of the vacant site from the date of purchase; since the defendant's father-in-law incurred various debts, he issued two post dated cheques to third parties including one Mr.S.Shankara Vadevelu (Ex-counsellor), for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- each. Since the cheques were dishonoured, the defendant's father-in-law was forced to face criminal action; in order to escape from the pressure, the defendant and her husband offered to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and a sale agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 03.07.2009; as per the sale agreement, the sale price was fixed at Rs.15 lakhs; the plaintiff paid Rs.14,00,000/- on the date of the sale agreement and that was also acknowledged by the defendant in the agreement itself; the plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1 lakh within a period of one year; the suit agreement of sale was arranged by the father-in-law of the defendant; time is not the essence of the contract; with the partial sale consideration received from the plaintiff, the financial liabilities of the defendant's father-in-law were also discharged; the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; despite the plaintiff demanded the defendant on various occasions to come and execute the sale deed, the defendant did not come forward to do so; whenever the plaintiff insisted the defendant, she told that the original title deeds were in the bank locker and the key was in the custody of her husband, who was in the States; since the defendant did not perform her part of the contract, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for specific performance.

(ii)Written statement in brief:

The defendant has filed a written statement by contending that they were never the tenants at the house mentioned by the plaintiff at Manakula Vinayagar Street, Thiruvannalamai; it is also false to state that the defendant's father-in-law issued two cheques in favour of the said Mr.S.Shankara Vadivelu and they were bounced due to insufficient funds; the defendant purchased the suit property with the help of one Mr.N.S.Subramanian; the father's name of the defendant's husband is Mr.P.D.Nithiyantham and not Mr.N.S.Subramanian as stated by the plaintiff; the said Mr.N.S.Subramanian has acted only as a guardian to the defendant's husband Mr.Selvadurai and his brother Mr.Sreenivas; the said Mr.N.S.Subramanian had borrowed Rs.7,50,000/- from one Mr.Susilkumar of Tiruvannamalai by showing the stranger's property as his property and gave 3 cheques and the same were dishonoured; further, the said Mr.N.S.Subramanian had entered into a sale agreement with one Mr.Ravichandiran in respect of the properties belonging to a third person by name Mr.Narayanasamy Iyer; in this regard, a complaint was also given by Mr.Ravichandiran; the sale agreement was not executed by the defendant and it was a fabricated document; the defendant never received any money from the plaintiff; and hence, the sui