The plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract and the impact of the defendant's legal notice on the specific performance claim.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Degree of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in O.S.No.301 of 2010 dated 11.10.2013.)

R. Kalaimathi, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.301 of 2010, dated 11.10.2013, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, the sole defendant therein has preferred this appeal.

2. One Sundaram and Sheshasalraj filed a suit for specific performance to direct the defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration or in the alternative to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- paid by them under the sale agreement dated 08.12.2009 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 07.03.2010 till date of realisation and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from in any manner encumbering or alienating the suit property in favour of any third parties suppressing the sale agreement dated 08.12.2009, in favour of the plaintiffs and for costs.

3. The learned Trial Judge after hearing both sides and upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit for specific performance granting 3 months time for payment of balance amount and for execution of sale deed. Against this judgment, the defendant Smt.Kanchana Baskaran has preferred this appeal.

4. The leanred Senior Counsel Shri.S.Parthasarathy appearing for the appellant / defendant would vehemently contend that with regard to the suit property she entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiffs on 08.12.2009 fixing the sale consideration at Rs.75,00,000/- and on the date of sale agreement, an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was received as an advance and at the instance of the plaintiffs, on 07.03.2010, an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid. Three months time was fixed for sale. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not come forward to pay remaining sale consideration within the stipulated time as per the terms of the agreement. The further argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the behest of the plaintiffs, a months time was extended to mobilize funds. The learned counsel would stress upon the fact that the plaintiffs'' claim that the existene of 33 feet road which runs towrds north of the property and the 10 feet pathway which situate to the south of the suit property came to be known to him at a later point of time, are baseless as he has admitted during the cross examination to the effect that these details were known to him before entering into the sale agreement. The learned Senior Counsel Shri.S.Parthasarathy would further contend that it was only the defendant who issued the notice by way of telegram dated 16.04.2010, cancelling the agreement. As the address given was not correct, he issued a pucca notice on 21.04.2010 cancelling the suit sale agreement. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not stick on to the time stipulated as per the terms of the agreement and they were not at all ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and sought for setting aside the judment and decree of the trial Court.

5. To buttress his arguments, the following judgments were referred to :

i) The observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Pachaiappan and two others v. S.P.Koon Mari reported in 1996-2-LW-1, wherein, it has been held that a principle that the equitable relief of specific performance cannot be granted to a person who is put forward a false case is based on the doctrine of one who seek equity must do equity. But, the question whether the plaintiff is dis-entitled to claim the relief will depend on the facts of each case.

Based on the above said proposition, the learned Senior Counsel would strongly contend that the relief sought for in the plaint is one for specific performance and the plaintiffs having put-forth false pleas as mentioned supra, are not entitled for the re