IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract must be assessed in light of the entire context, including possession and payment of the sale consideration, and that delays in enforcement may not bar relief if the vendor has acquiesced to the delay.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The plaintiff, in a suit for specific performance, having suffered concurrent findings before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, is the appellant herein. The parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

2. The brief and material facts, that are necessary for deciding the above Second Appeal, are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff entered into a registered agreement of sale on 04.12.1997 with M.Loganathan for purchase of the suit property, on an agreed sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. Under the said agreement, the sale deed had to be executed on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- having been paid as advance even on the execution of the said agreement, within one year period. It is his further case that at the fag end of the one year period viz., on 10.11.1998, a supplementary agreement was entered into and the entire balance consideration of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the said M.Loganathan and the said M.Loganathan had handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. In the said supplementary agreement, it was also agreed that as and when the plaintiff wanted registration of the sale deed, the defendant would co-operate and do the needful. It is also claimed that the defendant executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff on 14.12.1998, empowering the plaintiff to deal with the property in any manner that the plaintiff may deem fit and proper. The further case of the plaintiff is that in furtherance of the above documents as well as registered power of attorney, the plaintiff has also let out the suit property to a tenant and has been collecting/enjoying the rents.

(ii) On 05.04.2011, the plaintiff issued a pre-suit notice, calling upon the legal heirs of M.Loganathan viz., the defendants in the suit to come forward to register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 20.04.2011. The said notice was received by the defendants and a reply was sent with all untenable allegations, thus, constraining the plaintiff to file the suit.

3. The defendants resisted the suit claim by filing a written statement, contending that M.Loganathan, under whom, they were claiming, had only borrowed money from the plaintiff and in all Rs.70,000/- had been borrowed and at the time of borrowing money from the plaintiff, the plaintiff had obtained signatures of the defendants' husband and father respectively.

4. It is the further case of the defendants that the power of attorney was executed only to take care of the property since M.Loganathan was going out of town and taking advantage of the signatures obtained from the said M.Loganathan, the plaintiff had brought about the sale agreement and caused great mental agony to M.Loganathan, which, in fact, resulted in his unfortunate demise. The plaintiff has no valid sale agreement in his favour and it is a fabricated document brought about to grab the valuable suit property from the defendants.

5. The defendants also denied the alleged payment of Rs.2,00,000/- on various dates and also stated that the suit was barred by limitation since for 13 years, the plaintiff had not taken any steps to seek enforcement of the alleged agreement.

6. The trial Court found that (i) the plaintiff was not ready and willing to conclude the transaction; (ii) the extension agreement dated 10.11.1998 marked as Ex.A.2 was a sham document; (iii) the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 54 of the Limitation Act and (iv) on the ground that the plaintiff has not established to have been in possession of the suit property, dismissed the suit.

7. On appeal, the first appellate Court held that even the sale agreement Ex.A.1 dated 04.12.1997 was not proved and confirmed the findings of the trial Court with regard to the plaintiff's lack of readiness and willingness. However, the first appellate Court found the suit to be in time and not hit by Article 54 of the Limitation Act.