JUDGMENT :

N.MALA, J.

Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set-aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2011 in O.S.No.101 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Thiruvallur.

This appeal is filed to set-aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2011 passed in O.S.No.101 of 2010 on the file of the Principle District Judge at Thiruvallur.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.101 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur. The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court.

PLEADINGS:

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff approached the defendant who is the owner of the suit property, for sale of the suit property in his favour. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement for sale on 08.10.2008, where under the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.26,50,000/- and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid as advance by the plaintiff to the defendant. Among other terms and conditions of the Agreement the plaintiff agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration within 90 days of the agreement. According to the plaintiff the defendant had not disclosed that Urban Land Tax was due and payable in respect of the subject property and that inspite of repeated reminders the defendant failed to make the Urban Land Tax dues. The plaintiff in order to show his readiness and willingness to pay the balance of sale consideration and to complete the sale transaction issued a notice to the defendant enclosing the copy of the draft sale deed and posted the same to the defendant on 08.06.2009. As it was returned the plaintiff resent the said notice on 15.06.2009, which was received by the defendant on 18.06.2009.

4. The plaintiff's further case was that the defendant was postponing and giving evasive replies to receive the balance and to clear the Urban Land Tax dues. In fact, though the defendant denied it, the plaintiff on enquiry came to know that on 16.04.2010 an order was passed against the defendant demanding a sum of Rs.55,750/- and the defendant paid the same on 07.04.2010. According to the plaintiff, the defendant vide letter dated 08.07.2010 returned the part advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through a Demand Draft and unilaterally cancelled the sale agreement ergo, he was constrained to file the present suit for specific performance.

5. The defendant in the written statement admitted the sale agreement, sale consideration and the advance amount. The defendant denied the plaintiff's contention that the suit property attracted Urban Land Tax. The defendant submitted that the payment of Urban Land Tax was not a condition of the Sale Agreement and as the plaintiff was not able to mobilize the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated under the Agreement, the plaintiff in order to escape from his contractual obligations invented the excuse of Urban Land Tax dues. According to the defendant time was the essence of the contract and as the plaintiff had not come-forward to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the sale within the time stipulated the defendant was forced to cancel the Sale Agreement.

6. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff even after knowing that the defendant had paid the regularization fee for converting the agricultural land into house plot on 07.04.2010 itself did not come-forward to complete the sale transaction even thereafter. The defendant further submitted that the suit itself was not maintainable, as the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, in that no specific pleadings were raised in the plaint satisfying the requirements of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendant therefore prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

7. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

OTHER LANGUAGE

8. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 an