The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness for specific performance, as well as the availability of the defense of readiness and willingness to subsequent purchasers.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge's Court at Namakkal, dated 03.04.2017 in A.S.No.31 of 2015 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Tiruchengode, dated 24.07.2015 in O.S.No.140 of 2010.)

1. The sixth defendant in the suit is the appellant. The suit for specific performance filed by the first respondent was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the defendants 1 & 6 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the sixth defendant filed this Second Appeal.

2. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the respondents 2 to 5 are the owners of the property covered by the sale agreement. They executed a general power of attorney in favour of the deceased first defendant Chellamuthu and he entered into a sale agreement with the first respondent on 27.01.2006 agreed to sell the property covered under the agreement for a sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-.

3. The first respondent paid an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of agreement itself and the balance of Rs.25,000/- was agreed to pay within 1 ½ years (on or before 26.07.2007). The first respondent/plaintiff issued a pre-suit notice on 16.06.2010 calling upon the deceased first defendant to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement. The first defendant issued a reply claiming that the suit sale agreement is a sham and nominal document and the first respondent had got no right under said agreement. Therefore, the first respondent was constrained to file a suit for specific performance on 26.07.2010. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the plaintiff acquired knowledge that the suit property was sold by deceased first defendant in favour of the appellant on 30.06.2010 and therefore, he was arrayed as sixth defendant in the suit.

4. The deceased first defendant filed a written statement claiming that the suit agreement was only a sham and nominal document and therefore, the first respondent was not entitled to specific performance. The deceased first defendant also raised a plea that the first respondent failed to prove his readiness and willingness and consequently, he was not entitled to specific performance. The sixth defendant also filed written statement after his impleadment in the case claiming that he was a bonafide purchaser. The appellant also raised a plea that the suit sale agreement was only a sham and nominal document and therefore, the suit was filed by the first respondent with huge delay.

5. Before the trial Court, the first respondent/plaintiff was examined as PW1. The attestor of Ex.A1 and scribe were examined as PW2 & PW3. The deceased first defendant was examined as DW1. The appellant was examined as DW2. Yet another witness namely, A.S.Venkatachalam was examined as DW3. On behalf of the first respondent, five documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A5. On behalf of the appellant and deceased first defendant 9 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B9.

6. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the first respondent was entitled for specific performance of the suit sale agreement and granted decree. Aggrieved by the same, the deceased first defendant Chellamuthu and the appellant filed an appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2015 before the Principal District Court, Namakkal. The first Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the sixth defendant has filed this Second Appeal.

7. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law:

“1. When Ex.A1 alleged sale agreement dated 27.01.2006 and the time fixed for execution of the sale deed expired on 26.07.2006, is the suit filed on 26.07.2010, barred by limitation as prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

2. When the first respondent had failed to prove his continuous readiness an