IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a party seeking specific performance to prove the execution of the sale agreement and demonstrate readiness and willingness for the discretionary relief.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.42 of 2010 dated 08.03.2012 on the file of Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.190 of 2004 dated 29.03.2010 on the file of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil.

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.17 of 2011 dated 08.03.2012 on the file of Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.140 of 2004 dated 29.03.2010 on the file of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.190 of 2004, who had filed a suit for specific performance and 1st defendant in O.S.No.140 of 2004, who had filed a suit for bare injunction is before this court, as Appellant in both Second Appeals. The sole defendant in the suit for specific performance, the plaintiff in the suit for bare injunction is the 1st respondent in both Second Appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the trial court in the comprehensive suit in O.S.No.190 of 2004.

3. As both Second Appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 08.03.2012 in A.S. No. 42 of 2010 and A.S.No.17 of 2011, both Second Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant's father Rathinasamy owned the suit property and pursuant to his death, the defendant is the owner of suit property. The defendant is none other than the paternal uncle of plaintiff. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the father of defendant Rathinasamy on 25.06.1986 and due to close relationship, the agreement was not registered, but possession of first item of suit property was handed over to the plaintiff. From then on, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, however, based on the request of the defendant and his father Rathinasamy, the plaintiff changed the possession from the first item to the second item of suit property, constructed a brick built house and living therein. According to plaintiff, after the death of his father, the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of plaintiff on 19.01.2002 and on the date of the agreement, the defendant had handed over possession of first item of suit property also. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.20,000/- and out of which, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid by the plaintiff as advance and period of three years was fixed for the payment of remaining sale consideration of Rs.5000/-. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract and get the sale deed completed by paying balance sale consideration. When the defendant evaded to complete the sale, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice through her advocate on 28.06.2004, for which the defendant issued an evasive reply on 16.08.2004. After receipt of notice, the defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.140 of 2004 and obtained an ex-parte order of injunction and tried to trespass into suit property, however it was prevented by the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and also for recovery of possession of suit property.

5. The defendant apart from filing a suit in O.S.No.140 of 2004 as against the plaintiff and two others, who are her sister and husband, resisted the suit by filing a written statement. The defendant had denied the execution of sale agreement on 19.01.2002 and also earlier agreement dated 25.06.1986. The plaintiff was never in possession of suit property and this defendant had been all along in possession and enjoyment of suit property. The suit properties originally belonged to Saradhambal Achi and the defendant had been cultivating the lands for more than 30 years and only in the year 1993, Sa