Specific performance can be denied even if the defense is rejected if the plaintiff fails to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated July 24, 2019 made in A.S. No. 45 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated July 20, 2018 made in O.S. No. 118 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Special Judge (FAC), Krishnagiri.

1. This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated July 24, 2019 passed in A.S. No. 45 of 2018 by the ‘Additional District Court, Krishnagiri’ [hereinafter ‘First Appellate Court’] wherein and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated July 20, 2018 passed in O.S. No. 118 of 2015 by the ‘Additional Special Judge (FAC), Krishnagiri’ [henceforth ‘Trial Court’] was confirmed.

2. The plaintiff in the Original Suit is the appellant herein. The defendants therein are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE:

3. The 1st defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant. The Suit Property absolutely belonged to the defendants. The defendants offered to sell the Suit Property to the plaintiff on May 15, 2014 and the plaintiff also agreed to purchase the same. Sale price was fixed at Rs. 1,38,000/-. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 89,000/- on May 15, 2014 and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration had to be paid within the period of performance which was fixed at three months from the date of Sale Agreement, upon which, the defendants have to execute the Sale Deed. Accordingly, they entered into an written Sale Agreement. Since the Sale Agreement could not be registered on the day of execution, the defendants agreed to co-operate with the plaintiff for registering the same later.

3.1. The plaintiff got ready with the balance sale consideration and was requesting the defendants to receive the same and execute the Sale Deed directly. But the defendants were evasive in registering the Sale Agreement/Sale Deed. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to compulsorily register Suit Sale Agreement, after due notice, as Document No. 792/2015 on the file of Sub Registrar’s Office, Kaveripattinam on March 18, 2015.

3.2. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendants on May 6, 2015 requesting them to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the Sale Deed. But the defendants refused to perform their part of the contract stating that the cost of the land has shot up. In view of the conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff was forced to file the Suit seeking the relief of Specific Performance to enforce the Suit Sale Agreement.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE:

4. The defendants filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff except those specifically admitted. The 1st defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant. The Suit Sale Agreement is a fraudulent one. The plaintiff has compulsorily registered the same as Document No. 792/2015 through some fraudulent means. The plaintiff did not approach the defendants on May 6, 2015 requesting them to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the Sale Deed. It is incorrect to assert that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to fulfil his part of the alleged Suit Sale Agreement.

4.1. The plaintiff actually tried to encroach upon the Suit Property which absolutely belongs to the defendants’ family as undivided ancestral property. On May 9, 2014, the plaintiff and his sons with some local village people threatened the defendants to sign in some blank papers. The defendants had given a complaint against the plaintiff in local police station, however due to influence, the plaintiff and his sons escaped from police enquiry. Accordingly, the defendants sought to dismiss the Suit.

TRIAL COURT:

5. At trial, plaintiff-Mariyappan was examined as PW-1 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.6 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of t