JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2016 passed in A.S.No.78 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2015 passed in O.S.No.136 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli by allowing this Second Appeal.

This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The defendant in the suit O.S.No.136 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli is the appellant herein. The respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit.

2. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 21.02.2007 and the extension agreement dated 25.06.2009 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

3. The defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property measuring 17 Acres and 19 cents in Survey Nos.1471/B/1B and 1472/2B, Gangaikondan Village, Tirunelveli District. The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement dated 21.02.2007 with the defendant under which he agreed to purchase the suit schedule property from the defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,39,170/-. On the date of the agreement of sale, the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.5,10,000/-and he agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,29,170/-and complete the sale within a period of one month from the date of the agreement. The plaintiff entered into another agreement with the defendant on 25.06.2009 and as per the said agreement, time for completion of the sale was extended to enable the defendant to get patta for the suit schedule property. On the date of the agreement dated 25.06.2009, the plaintiff paid an additional advance of Rs.1,50,000/-to the defendant and as per the agreement, the defendant agreed to obtain a patta in his name and on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.79,170/-, he agreed to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of one month thereafter. The plaintiff claims that he was always ready and willing to fulfil his obligations under the agreement of sale dated 21.02.2007 and the extension agreement dated 25.06.2009. According to him, since the defendant did not obtain the patta as agreed by him, the sale could not be completed. The plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant on 09.06.2012 calling upon the defendant to fulfil his part of the contract by executing a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of one month. According to the plaintiff, the defendant received the said legal notice on 11.06.2012, but he had not sent any reply. According to the plaintiff, only in those circumstances, he was constrained to file a suit for specific performance against the defendant.

4. However, according to the defendant, as seen from his written statement, the plaintiff was not ready and willing to complete the sale within the stipulated time as fixed under the agreement of sale dated 21.02.2007. According to the defendant, in a hurried manner, the suit was filed without giving an opportunity for the defendant to reply to the legal notice of the plaintiff dated 09.06.2012. According to the defendant, it was only the plaintiff, who had approached the defendant on 25.06.2009 seeking for extension of time to complete the sale and therefore, the plaintiff was not always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per the agreement of sale dated 21.02.2007 by completing the sale within a period of one month from that date.

5. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance as prayed for in the plaint?

b) As to what othe