The burden was on the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract. The plaintiff failed to establish his readiness to discharge the debts of the defendants and was unable to prove the existence of the oral agreement of sale.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.2.2004 and made in A.S.No. 90 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram District, Villupuram confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.2000 and made in O.S.No. 337 of 1980 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam.)

1. The plaintiffs/legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 337 of 1980 on the file of the Principal Sub Court at Tindivanam are the appellants herein.

2. The suit in O.S.No. 337 of 1980 had been filed by M.C.Dharmachand Gulocha originally against nine defendants, seeking a direction against the defendants to execute a sale deed with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by enforcing an oral agreement dated Nil August 1979 and to receive the balance sale consideration and on such failure for the Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and to deliver the suit property to the plaintiff and also for costs of the suit.

3. The property as given in the schedule to the plaintiff was situated in Tindivanam in Mariamman Kovil Street in Grama Natham S.No. 63/1, being land and building consisting of ground and first floors and also an open terrace. Pending the suit, the second, third, fifth and ninth defendants had died, necessitating impleading their legal representatives. Thereafter, by order dated 27.04.1982 in I.A.No. 170 of 1982 the tenth defendant R.Radha Krishnan was also impleaded.

4. The cause of action for instituting the suit was claimed to have arisen in August 1978 which was when the date of oral agreement was said to have been entered into and on 01.07.1980 by which period the agreement should have been performed and sale deed should have been executed.

5. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit property originally belonged to Mohamad Hassan Sahib and that the first to fourth defendants were his sons and fifth and sixth defendants were his daughters and seventh and ninth defendants were his grand children, namely, children of a pre-deceased daughter. It was stated that on his death, the defendants were entitled to the suit property. The first defendant was residing at Tindivanam and was also looking after the business as power of attorney of the other defendants. During the course of such business, the defendants had accumulating debts to be paid to various parties. The plaintiff was a tenant in the ground floor and he was running a business as partner along with his son D.Herachand.

6. It was claimed that the defendants, owing to the debts which had been incurred and also owing to other family necessities had borrowed amounts from the said D.Herachand between April 1978 to June 1978, and when the amounts were demanded to be repaid, the first and third defendants had approached the plaintiff and had orally agreed to convey the property for a total consideration of Rs.95,000/-. It is claimed that they both so on their own behalf and as power of attorney agent of the other defendants. It was specifically stated that the said oral agreement of sale was on 11.08.1978 in the presence of one Advocate R.Srinivasan and another individual V.R.Sethu Madhavan. The son D.Herachand was also said to be present.

7. It was further claimed that an advance of Rs.2,000/- has been paid to the first and third defendants. It was further agreed that out of the balance sale consideration, a sum of Rs.90,000/- had to be paid towards discharge of the amounts to various third parties and that on the date of registration of the sale agreement, the final sum of Rs.3,000/- should be paid. It was stated that the entire transaction should be completed on or before 01.07.1980.

8. It was further stated in the plaint that a written agreement of sale was not obtained from the defendants owing to long standing relationship and also owing to the fact that the two individuals who stood as witnesses were respectful persons.

9. Pending the suit as s