The plaintiff must establish both readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, including the capacity to pay the agreed sale consideration, in order to seek the equitable relief of specific performance.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2010 made in O.S.No.45 of 2008 on the file of the District Judge of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.

Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2010 made in O.S.No.45 of 2008 on the file of the District Judge of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.)

Common Judgment:

P.B. Balaji, J.

1. These two First Appeals are filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.45 of 2008, filed by the appellant in A.S.No.211 of 2013 as plaintiff, seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 07.11.2005 and for delivery of possession, with an alternate prayer for Rs.60,00,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit.

2. The District Judge, Nilgiris at Oootacamud, in and by judgment and decree dated 18.02.2010, rejecting the prayer for specific performance, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum, from the date on which the amounts were advanced.

3. The parties are described as per their rank before the Trial court for the sake of convenience.

4. The plaintiff/appellant in A.S.No.211 of 2013 has preferred the said Appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court refusing to grant specific performance. On the other hand, the defendants who are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum have preferred A.S.No.355 of 2013 as against the said decree for money, especially laying challenge to the decree for payment of interest.

5. Brief facts that are necessary for deciding the above appeals are as follows:

The defendants representing to be the owners of the suit schedule property, agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff and an agreement of sale was executed on 07.11.2005, fixing the total sale consideration at Rs.84,00,000/-. Originally the mother of the 5th defendant one Rathinamala was also a signatory to the agreement of sale. However, in view of her demise and her share being inherited by the 5th defendant, the suit has been filed as against defendants 1 to 5. On the date of the sale agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as security deposit and subsequently on 03.01.2006 a further sum of Rs.19,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff in respect of which an endorsement was made by the defendants and the deceased Rathinamala, confirming the receipt of Rs.19,00,000/-.

6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the sale transaction should be completed within one year from the date of payment of sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. The plaintiff also places reliance on Clause 4 of the sale agreement, which casts upon the defendants certain obligations on receipt of the sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. The plaintiff also places reliance on Clause 6 of the agreement in terms of which the defendants have to either refund the amounts advanced by various tenants or alternatively furnish details and correct particulars of advance/security deposits received from the tenants to enable the plaintiff to absorb the same and deduct it from the balance sale consideration to be paid to the defendants. The plaintiff further states that even though the defendants received the said sum of Rs.19,00,000/-, they did not take any steps to fulfill any of their obligations as undertaken in Clauses 4 and 6 of the sale agreement. The plaintiff further contends that the 1st defendant who was well known to the plaintiff, was assuring the plaintiff that necessary steps were being taken in terms of Clauses 4 and 6 and that the plaintiff would be informed on successful completion of the defendant''s obligations. The plaintiff believed the representations of the 1st defendant and was patiently waiting, at which point of time, he was surprised to receive an unsigned registered letter dated 05.12.2007, along with a bank