IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that specific performance can be granted when the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, and that extensions of time for performance, if mutually agreed upon, are valid under the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

These instant appeals have been filed by the respective first defendant as being aggrieved against the common judgment of the Court below granting a decree of specific performance to execute the sale deeds in respect of the suit properties on the strength of the agreement of sale entered by them in favour of the plaintiff on deposit of the balance sale consideration. For easy reference, the parties are referred as per their rank in the Original Suit.

2. Heard M/s.Elizabeth Ravi learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first defendant in both cases, Mr.P.J.George learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff in both cases and M/s.Pavithra Sundarajan learned counsel for Mr.K.Moorthy learned counsel appearing for second respondent bank in both cases.

3. The facts which lead to the present appeals in a nut shell is that the first defendant is the owner of both the suit properties. Both the plaintiffs and the first defendant entered into the sale agreements on 25.08.2009 and 02.09.2009 respectively to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit properties within a period of 3 months from the date of execution of sale agreements. As per the sale agreements, the sale consideration was fixed as Rs.13,75,000/- and Rs.8,25,000/-. The plaintiffs in both the suits had paid Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively towards the advance by way of cheque. The endorsement made in the sale agreement also evidence the payment of further advance for the performance of the obligation in the sale agreement. The first defendant had mortgaged the suit property with the second defendant and redeemed those properties. The first defendant denied the execution of the sale agreements in favour of the plaintiffs and the advance amount received from the plaintiffs in the written statement. The second defendant admitted the loan and denied the fact that the second defendant was not aware of the transaction between the plaintiffs and the first defendant in the written statement and the second defendant contended that the second defendant is not a necessary party to both the suits.

4. Considering the pleadings and the evidences available before the trial court, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court for consideration in O.S.No.37 of 2010:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract or refund of advance amount as alleged?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled a charge over the property for proper payment of the decree amount as alleged?

3) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as alleged?

4) Whether the first defendant by negotiating to sell the property to plaintiff as alleged?

5) Whether the second defendant is unnecessary party and the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged?

6) To what relief if any the plaintiff is entitled to?

O.S.No.38 of 2010:-

(1) Whether the Suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties?

(2) Whether the sale agreement was created for loan transaction?

(3) Whether the endorsement dated 07.12.2009 is true, genuine and supported by consideration?

(4) whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of specific performance?

(5) If not, whether the plaintiff is entitled to get refund of advance amount?

(6) To what relief plaintiff is entitled to?

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first defendant would submit that the respective plaintiffs had approached the Court with unclean hands and have suppressed the materials facts and hence, they would not be entitled for the relief claimed for in the Suit. She would submit that the first defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The property had been mortgaged with the second defendant bank and since coercive steps have been taken by the bank, the first defendant had approached the plaintiffs for a hand-loan to redeem the property from the bank. However, the plaintiffs had insisted upon the execution of