The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must establish readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai, in O.S.No.56/2008, dated 04.08.2010.)

Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai, in O.S.No.56/2008, dated 04.08.2010, dismissing the suit filed for specific performance and granting only alternative relief of refund of money, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are as follows:-

The defendants 1 and 2 are the mother and daughter. The first item of the property belonged to the defendant No.1. Second item of the property belonged to the second defendant. Both the defendants decided to sell the properties. As a result, on 26.09.2007, both of them orally agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,25,000/- and received a sum of Rs.50,001/- as token advance, followed by an written sale agreement dated 11.10.2007 and received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards sale consideration. It is agreed between the parties that sale shall be completed within a period of three months. Second defendant agreed to discharge the loan amount of Rs.2,52,000/- borrowed from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. However, the second defendant has not discharged the loan amount. The plaintiff has approached the defendants on several occasions and requested them to execute a sale deed in favour of her after receiving balance sale consideration, within a time. The second defendant has not performed their part of obligations. As the defendants neither discharged the loan nor executed the sale deed, the plaintiff has also gave a complaint before the Sellur Police Station dated 05.03.2008. The second defendant, however, in order to escape from the criminal complaint, issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in favour of the plaintiff on 15.03.2008. The plaintiff received the cheque under the compulsion of the defendants and presented the same through her advocate on 18.03.2008. However, the payment was stopped by the drawer. Thereafter, the second defendant also informed that they are ready to pay the balance sale consideration as per the agreement. However, the defendants have not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has sent a legal notice dated 01.04.2008, which was replied by the defendant on 04.04.2008. Hence, the suit.

4. Admitting the sale agreement, it is the contention of the defendants in the written statement that the plaintiff has given a police complaint on 05.03.2008. Thereafter, the second defendant issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the plaintiff on 15.03.2008. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff could not mobilize the fund to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the execution of sale within the time fixed in the sale agreement, since time is the essence of contract. The plaintiff also addressed two complaints to the Inspector of Police levelling allegations against the defendants. The above complaints itself clearly show that the plaintiff was not in a position to perform her part of the contract. The plaintiff demanded refund of advance amount from the defendants and accordingly, they issued a cheque for the part amount on condition that balance should be paid within three months from 15.03.2008. Since the plaintiff has not issued any receipt, the second defendant instructed the bank on 14.03.2008 to stop the payment. It is the further contention of the defendants that the plaintiff never requested the second defendant and she never tendered the balance amount of sale consideration and the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform her part o