IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and unreasonable delay in filing the suit can negate the right to specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2016 made in A.S. No. 4 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sub-Court, Cheyyar confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2013 made in O.S. No. 284 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar.

1. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of an unregistered agreement dated 04.03.1993. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the first Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellants are before this Court.

2. According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, she entered into suit sale agreement on 04.03.1993 with her father one Kannappa Naidu and her brothers Kasi and Duraikannu, the appellants 1 and 2 herein. As per the terms of agreement, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- and an advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid on the date of agreement. The time fixed for payment of the balance amount was two months. It was further averred by the 1st respondent that balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- was also paid within two months from the date of agreement. Though 1st respondent requested the agreement vendors to execute the sale deed, the same was postponed by them on the ground that possession of the property was delivered to 1st respondent. Just prior to filing of the suit, it came to the knowledge of the 1st respondent that appellants 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 sold the suit property to 3rd appellant/4th defendant. Therefore, she filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement.

3. The appellants 1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the execution of agreement. The appellant 1 and 2 also denied the averment in the plaint that the suit properties was delivered to 1st respondent on the date of agreement. It was also alleged that father of the parties namely Kannappa Naidu died 17 years back and the present suit has been filed with the help of forged agreement. The appellants 1 and 2 also raised a plea of limitation.

4. The 3rd appellant/4th defendant filed a separate written statement and claimed that suit sale agreement was forged one. He also raised a plea that he purchased the property after proper verification of title of the appellants 1 and 2 and hence, he was bona-fide purchaser.

5. Before the Trial Court, the 1st respondent/plaintiff was examined as PW-1. One of the attestor of the suit sale agreement and sister of the parties was examined as PW-2. The wife of another attestor of the suit sale agreement was examined as PW-3. On behalf of the 1st respondent/plaintiff, 4 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A4. The 2nd and 4th defendants were examined as DW-1 and DW-2. On behalf of the defendants, no documents were marked.

6. The Trial Court, on consideration of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that due execution of suit sale agreement was proved and the 1st respondent was entitled to decree for specific performance. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 4 of 2015 on the file of learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, Cheyyar. The First Appellate Court also affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and hence, the appellants have come by way of second appeal.

7. This Court at the time of admission formulated the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 13.10.2023 and the same reads as follows:

“(i) Whether the Courts below are justified in granting a decree for specific performance based on an agreement, whose terms are uncertain?

(ii) Whether the Courts below are justified in granting a decree for specific performance, when there is unreasonable delay on the part of the appellant in filing a suit for specific performance?”

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit sale agreement does not specify the property regarding which th