The deceased plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the lack of evidence to support the claim led to the setting aside of the lower courts' decisions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.02.2008 in A.S.No. 5 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.4), Periyakulam confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2006 in O.S.No.412 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam.)

1. The appellant is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.412 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam. The deceased first respondent is the plaintiff in the above suit.

2. The first respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit has passed away and his legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 2 to 8.

3. The suit was filed by the deceased first respondent / plaintiff seeking for equitable relief of specific performance and permanent injunction restraining the appellant / defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit properties.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties belong to the defendant. The defendant agreed to sell the properties to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and both parties registered a Sale Agreement dated 21.05.1998. On that day itself, the defendant received a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- as advance. As per the Sale Agreement, the defendant should receive the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- within a period of two and half years i.e., on or before 21.11.2000 from the plaintiff and execute a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff or the persons mentioned by the plaintiff at the cost of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a telegraphic notice dated 11.11.2000 to the defendant stating that he would wait in the Sub Registrar Office on 21.11.2000 and the defendant should come and execute the Sale Deed as per the Agreement. However, the defendant has not responded to the same. Though the plaintiff waited at the Sub Registrar Office throughout the day on 21.11.2000, the defendant has not come forward to execute the Sale Deed. Thereafter, the defendant had come to the plaintiff and promised orally that she will execute the Sale Deed and therefore, the plaintiff waited even after the expiry of the Agreement. However, since the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is about to execute a Sale Deed in favour of a third party, he has filed this suit for specific performance on 18.11.2000. It is his case that, in the meantime, the defendant and her husband filed a suit in O.S.No.68 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam against the plaintiff and his son seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant and her family.

5. The case of the defendant is that for the past 14 years, for the purpose of Pickle Business, the defendant and her husband have received money from the plaintiff''s family and they also used to execute Sale Agreement as security. In a similar way, in the year 1995, Sale Agreements were executed along with Power of Attorney and upon Settlement of money, the Sale Agreements were not acted upon and the Power of Attorney was also cancelled. Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was borrowed from the plaintiff, for which the Sale Agreement dated 21.05.1998 came to be executed nominally at the Sub Registrar Office, Bodi in favour of the plaintiff. There are two schedules in the suit properties. The first schedule belong to the defendant and she had no intention to sell the same. The second schedule is a poromboke land measuring an extent of 30 cents. The defendant has settled the total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of August 2001. Since the plaintiff forced the defendant to execute the Sale Deed, the defendant and her husband have filed a suit in O.S.No.68 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam against the plaintiff and his son seeking for permanent injunction. The readiness and willingness alleged by the plaintiff is false, if so, the plaintiff would have filed the suit once he