The court affirmed that a valid agreement of sale, once established, obligates the defendant to perform, and the plaintiff's readiness to fulfill his obligations is crucial for specific performance.

 JUDGMENT :

Challenging the judgement and decree passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 06.10.2023 in O.S.No.235 of 2016 granting a decree for specific performance of contract, the 1^st defendant is before this court with the present appeal suit. The 1^st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd defendant in the suit.

2. No appeal suit or cross objection from the partly unsuccessful plaintiff as against the dismissal part of the suit refusing to grant a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants.

3. For clarity and ease of reference, the parties involved in this appeal suit will hereinafter be referred to according to their status in the original suit.

4. The suit in O.S.No.235 of 2016 has been filed against the defendants praying for a judgement and decree of (a) specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.07.2015 directing the 1^st defendant to execute a sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.9,30,000/- within the time frame fixed by the court and if the defendants fail to execute the sale deed, the court should execute the sale deed or in the alternative, directing the 1^st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.7,70,000/- to the plaintiff together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of plaint till date of realisation; (b) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming any right through them from in any way disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; and (c) for costs of the suit.

5.0 The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: -

5.1 The suit schedule mentioned property belongs to the 1^st defendant. The suit property is situated in Coimbatore District. Since the 1^st plaintiff has been residing in Erode District, the 2^nd defendant, who is none other than the brother of the 1^st plaintiff was asked to look after the suit property.

5.2. The plaintiff has been inducted as a tenant for the suit schedule mentioned property in 2012 under the 2nd defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. The plaintiff was paying the rent without any default. Thereafter, on 21.05.2015, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the 2^nd defendant. While so, in the month of June 2015, the 2^nd defendant informed him that his brother (1^st defendant) decided to sell his property which is the suit schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff expressed his willingness to purchase the same. Subsequently, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into a sale agreement on 21.07.2015. The total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.17,00,000/- and on the same day a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as advance under agreement. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant to complete the sale transaction by six months.

5.3 Thereafter, on 01.10.2015 the 1st defendant received another Rs.3,50,000/- as a part of sale consideration and made an endorsement on the sale agreement. Following that, on 28.12.2015 and 01.01.2016, the 1^st defendant received Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively as part sale consideration from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had spent Rs.1,50,000/- to get the suit property repaired. The plaintiff paid a premium of Rs.1,50,000/- on 21.05.2015 while entering into the lease agreement with the 2^nd defendant. Thus, in total, the plaintiff paid Rs.7,20,000/- a sum of Rs.7,20,00/- to the 1^st defendant and the balance to be paid was Rs.9,30,000/- only.

5.4 The plaintiff secured a home loan from Religare Home Loans Bank. This fact was informed to the 1st defendant. The bank requested the vendor's appearance so as to issue the loan amount in the form of cheque in the name of the 1st defendant. Initially, the 1^st defendant agreed to accept the cheque, but then declined to visit the bank. The 1^st defendant purposefully neglected to appear. The loan was briefly stopped by bank officials. When asked, the 1st defendant insisted on payment of the balance sale consideration in c