The essence of time in the contract, continuous readiness and willingness, and the discretionary nature of specific performance relief.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.97 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.)

1. The Appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.97 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. The case of the appellant is that the defendant owned the suit property. She had agreed to sell the same to the Appellant and one, R.Balasubramani for the sale consideration of Rs.975/-per sq.ft., Accordingly, on 05.02.2007, the plaintiff and another paid sum of Rs.4,00,001/- as advance for part of sale consideration to the defendant and they had entered into an agreement for sale. The period of contract is fixed as four months from the date of agreement. Though, the plaintiff and another have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract, the defendant had been evading to execute the sale deed without any reason. During the first week of June 2007, when the plaintiff and another were insisted the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale, the defendant informed that there is some dispute in the subject properties, due to which a suit is pending. Therefore, it requires further time to settle the issues and she sought further time. Even then, the Respondent/Defendant did not come forward to execute sale deed and as such, the Appellant/Plaintiff and another had caused legal notice dated 21.02.2008, thereby called upon the Respondent/Defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. However, the said notice was returned as no such member.

3.1. The further case of the plaintiff is that after verification of new address of Respondent/Defendant, another notice was sent to her and the same was received by her. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent/Defendant issued a reply notice dated 20.03.2008 alleging that it was fully a loan transaction and not an agreement for sale. After receipt of the reply, another person Balasubramanian had executed assignment notice in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff and thereby assigning right for purchasing the suit property in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff after receipt of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Appellant/Plaintiff. Thereafter, on 29.03.2008, the plaintiff caused another notice to the respondent/defendant. Hence, the Appellant/Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance as against the Respondent/Defendant.

4. The Respondent/defendant filed her written statement and stated that she never agreed to sell her property to plaintiff and another at any point of time. The rate fixed in the alleged agreement is imaginary one. The Appellant/Plaintiff and another are doing money lending business. When the Respondent/Defendant in need of money to pursue her son's education at New Delhi, she had approached the Appellant/Plaintiff for borrowal of loan to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for interest. The Respondent/Defendant also promised to return the same within a period of three years. At the time of borrowal of loan amount, the Appellant/Plaintiff had insisted her to execute document. Therefore, the Respondent/Defendant had signed in the blank stamp papers and other papers. Accordingly, she signed and borrowed sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as loan. Thereafter, the Appellant/Plaintiff and another had created a fabricated alleged agreement for sale dated 05.02.2007 and filed a suit for specific performance.

5. On perusal of the pleadings, the trial court framed following issues:- “IMAGES”

6. On the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff, he had examined P.W.1 to P.W3 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.10. On the side of Defendant, she