The court affirmed that specific performance can be granted when the execution of the sale agreement is proven and the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet, Vellore District passed in A.S.No. 10 of 2016 dated 27.09.2016 reversing the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District passed in O.S.No. 89 of 2007, dated 17.09.2014 and to set aside the same.

1. The defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The first respondent filed a suit for specific performance and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. The First Appeal preferred by the first respondent was allowed and as a consequence, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.

2. According to the first respondent, he entered into suit sale agreement dated 21.10.2006 for purchase of agreement mentioned property at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per cent. The total extent of the agreement mentioned property was 2.60 acres. Thus the total sale consideration comes to Rs.3,25,000/-. The first respondent paid an advance of amount Rs.50,000/- to the appellants on the date of agreement itself. The time stipulated for completing the sale transaction was four months (expires on 20.02.2007). It was further stated by the first respondent that on 11.12.2006, he paid a further amount of Rs.70,000/- to first appellant who received it on behalf of the second appellant/second defendant and also made an endorsement in the suit sale agreement marked as Ex.A2. Further on 14.01.2007, the first respondent paid another sum of Rs.70,000/- to first appellant who received it on behalf of other appellant and made an endorsement in the suit sale agreement marked as Ex.A3. It was claimed by the first respondent that he had been always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction. However, the appellants evaded the receipt of balance sale price and execution of sale deed. Hence, the first respondent issued a registered notice to appellants through his lawyer on 31.01.2007 calling upon them to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. The appellants came up with a false reply on 12.02.2007. Subsequently, on 14.02.2007, in order to defeat the right of the first respondent under the suit sale agreement, the appellants created a sham and nominal sale deed in favour of second respondent/third defendant who is the son-in-law of first appellant and husband of second appellant. In these circumstances, the first respondent was constrained to file a suit for specific performance.

3. The first appellant/first defendant filed a written statement and contended that he borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the first respondent and at the time of borrowal first respondent obtained the signatures of the first appellant and his wife Unnamalaiammal in blank papers and the same had been utilized by the first respondent to create the suit sale agreement. It was further averred in the written statement that the appellants did not receive any advance amount in pursuance of the agreement. It was further averred that the value of the suit property was more than Rs.30,00,000/- and the first respondent had no funds at his disposal to perform his part of the contract. The first appellant also expressed his willingness to pay back the sum of Rs.1,20,000/- received by him as loan. The second appellant/second defendant filed a written statement denying her signature in the suit sale agreement. It was claimed by her that the relationship between her and her father/first appellant was strained as the latter led a way-ward life and had become addicted to drink. It was further claimed that there was no necessity for the appellants to convey the agreement mentioned property to the first respondent and averment in the plaint regarding payment of advance amount and further amount based on endorsement were also denied. The second appellant by denying the privity o