The continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2016 passed in A.S.No.54 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014 passed in O.S.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore.)

The 8th defendant/subsequent purchaser is the appellant. The first respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the first respondent was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the 8th defendant in the suit is before this Court.

2. Plaint Averment:

According to the first respondent/plaintiff, he entered into a sale agreement dated 05.03.2000 with deceased Duraiammal (first defendant/predecessor of respondents 2 to 4). As per the terms of agreement, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.9,00,000/-. The first respondent paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on the date of agreement, the time fixed for performance was six months. The said period expired on 04.09.2000. It was further claimed by the first respondent, he paid a further sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to third defendant/third respondent on 21.04.2000 and obtained an endorsement under Ex.A2. It was also averred that the first respondent paid further sums of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- to third respondent on 21.05.2000, 30.06.2000 and 13.09.2000 respectively and obtained endorsements under Exs.A3, A4 and A5. Thus the said agreement vendor Duraiammal received a total sum of Rs.6,00,000/- till 13.09.2000. It was claimed by the first respondent, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and the deceased first defendant was evading execution of sale deed. The first respondent acquired knowledge about alienation made by deceased first respondent in favour of 3rd parties and hence he issued a legal notice dated 25.12.2000 calling upon the deceased first defendant to receive balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- from him and execute the sale deed. Since there was no favourable reply from 1st defendant, the first respondent filed a suit for specific performance on 02.01.2001.

3. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the agreement vendor Duraiammal had passed away and her legal representatives were arrayed as defendants 2 to 4 (respondents 2 to 4 herein).

4. The defendants 2 to 4 filed a written statement and then remained ex-parte. It is admitted fact that the agreement mentioned property was sold by deceased first defendant Duraiammal in favour of 5th respondent [D5] under Ex.A9 dated 27.12.2000. The 5th respondent inturn sold the agreement mentioned property to D6 and D7 (R6, R7 herein) on 04.03.2022 under Ex.A11. The defendants 6 and 7 sold the suit property to 8th defendant/appellant under Ex.A12 dated 27.04.2004. The defendants 2 to 4, 5th defendant and 8th defendant filed separate written statements. The defendants 6 and 7 remained ex-parte.

5. Averment found in the written statement of respondents 2 to 4/D2 to D4 :

The defendants 2 to 4 denied the execution of suit sale agreement and receipt of advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. They also denied the receipt of various amounts under various endorsements made under Ex.A1 suit sale agreement. It was further averred in the written statement that the 3rd defendant had no authority to receive any amount and make an endorsement on behalf of the first defendant. It was also averred that the first respondent/plaintiff was a money lendor and he used to lend money to deceased first defendant and take her signature and other members of her family on blank papers and on blank stamp papers. Those papers could have been pressed into service to file the present suit.

6. Averment found in the written statement of 5th defendant/5th respondent:

The 5th respondent herein in his written statement claimed that he purchased the suit property from the first respondent after due verification and he found no encumbrance over t