The plaintiff must prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract in order to be entitled to specific performance. A subsequent suit for specific performance is barred if the plaintiff has omitted to seek the relief in a previous suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., to allow the above Appeal filed by the appellant and consequently, set aside the judgment and decree of dismissing the suit in O.S.No.95 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District-cum- Sessions Judge, Dindigul, dated 20.09.2012 with cost.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 14.02.2013, made in O.S.No.95 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.)

Common Judgment

DR. G. Jayachandran, J.

1. Appeal Suit(MD)No.10 of 2013 filed by the plaintiff being not satisfied with the judgment and decree passed on 20.09.2012, in O.S.No.95 of 2009, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per description in the suit.

3. The suit for specific performance of the unregistered sale agreement, dated 12.02.2008 or in alternate to refund the advance of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest was partly allowed by the trial Court, directing the defendants to refund the advance money of Rs.10,00,000/- with litigation costs of Rs.4,14,903/- within one month.

4. According to the plaintiff, on 12.02.2008, he entered into an agreement of sale of immovable property with the defendants, the legal heirs of the late Mohammed Yusuf Ravuththar, who died intestate on 24.11.2003, leaving behind the suit schedule property. The defendants agreed to sell the suit scheduled property, admeasuring 2 Acres and 39 ½ Cents at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per Cent and received advance of Rs.10,00,000/- through cheque drawn at State Bank of India, Thousand Light Branch, Chennai, and agreed to hand over the original documents related to the property within three months and execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration. At the time of entering into the agreement, the defendants assured that they have not agreed to sell the property to anyone else earlier and if any such agreement made, they will cancel the same and get the no objection letter from the previous agreement holder. Likewise, if the vendors could not complete their part of contract, the buyer can cancel the sale agreement, get refund of the advance money.

5. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, but the defendants delayed in handing over the original documents, pertaining to the suit property and the death certificate of Mohammed Yusuf Ravuththar. They did not arrange for survey and measure the property. The plaintiff later came to know that the said Mohammed Yusuf Ravuththar, during his life time, had entered into a sale agreement with one M.P.Murugesan on 30.03.1999 and received advance of Rs.5,00,000/-. He has also executed a Power of Attorney Deed in favour of M.P.Murugesan and handed over the title documents to the said Murugesan and these facts were deliberately suppressed by the defendants. Knowing the earlier agreement with Murugesan, the plaintiff caused notice, dated 05.05.2008 to the defendants to cancel the previous sale agreement and power of attorney executed in favour of Murugesan by Mohammed Yusuf Ravuththar and executed the sale deed in his favour, receiving the balance sale consideration. To the said notice, the defendants/respondents through a reply notice, dated 15.05.2008, informing that they have sent notice to Murugesan on 14.05.2008 to cancel the deed he had entered with Mohammed Yusuf Ravuththar and hand over the original documents held by him.

6. Since the conduct of the defendants indicates that they are intent to commit breach of the agreement entered with him and making attempt to alienate the property to third party, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.209 of 2008 for injunction restraining the defendants from creating any encumbrance to the suit property and in the said suit, ad-interim injunction was granted. Subsequent to the suit, the plaintiff, through mediators, t