The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the defendants' false plea of forgery, and the impact of delay in completing the sale on specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.14 of 2010, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 20.12.2019.

Aggrieved over the decree and judgment, decreeing the suit for specific performance, this Appeal Suit has been filed by the appellants.

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

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

3.1. The suit property originally owned by one Subbammal. She has bequeathed the property in favour of one Muruga Konar, Krishna Konar @ Kittu Konar and the first defendant, Karuppiah Konar. Muruga Konar and his wife Rathinam died without any issues long back. Therefore, the entire suit property devolved on Krishna Konar @ Kittu Konar and the first defendant viz., Karuppiah Konar. The son of Krishan Konar @ Kittu Konar viz., Veeraiah predeceased his father leaving behind his wife and children, who are the defendants 3 to 6. The first defendant Krishna Konar @ Kittu Konar and his wife (second defendant) were agreed to sell the property for a total consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- and executed a registered agreement for sale on 10.10.2007 and received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as advance. Thereafter on 15.10.2007, again a supplementary agreement was executed and parties agreed to measure the property and in the event of excess land is available, the plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs.140 per sq. ft. Similarly in the event, the land is lesser, then the agreed sale consideration has to be proportionality reduced at the rate of Rs.140 per sq.ft. On the date of agreement, a further sum of Rs.2 lakhs was also received. Thereafter, on 30.10.2007 and 28.11.2007, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively also received by Krishna Konar @ Kittu Konar. Krishna Konar @ Kittu Konar and defendants 3 and 4 also signed as witnesses in the above document.

3.2. Though the time was agreed to complete the sale within five months, as there was some delay in measuring the property, the sale was not completed within five months. The plaintiff was ready to pay the balance sale consideration. However, the defendants 3 and 4 delayed the execution under the pretext that since Krishan Konar @ Kittu Konar under care and custody of the defendants 2 to 6 and he is not well, they will execute the sale deed after he became alright. In the meanwhile, Krishan Konar @ Kittu Konar died on 12.02.2008 and the legal heirs were assured that after his last rites and ceremonies are over, they will execute the sale deed. However, they have not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff's husband requested the defendants personally on 12.02.2008 to execute the sale deed. However, the defendants 3 and 4 demanded a further sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 16.08.2008. The first defendant was ready to execute the sale deed. The defendants 2 to 6 were originally agreed to execute the sale deed, but after one month, they have sent a false reply. Hence, the suit for specific performance.

4. The first defendant has filed a written statement admitting the execution of the agreement. However, he has not aware of the further payment made by the Krishna Konar @ Kittu Konar and he is always ready to execute the sale deed. He is not disputed the plaintiffs case.

5. Defendant No.3 has filed a written statement, which is adopted by defendants 2, 4, 5 and 6 admitting the relationship. It is the case of the third defendant that third defendant's husband one Veeraiah was the adopted son of Krishan Konar @ Kittu Konar. The suit property was enjoyed by the Karuppiah Konar, Muruga Konar and Krishna Konar @ Kittu Knoar jointly. At the relevant point of time, the first defendant was in need of fund for the family necessity and he decided to borrow the amount from the plaintiff's husband on interest at the rate of 2%