The plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness from the inception of the contract to be entitled to specific performance; mere existence of a registered agreement is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

These two appeals have been filed arising out of the same judgment in O.S.No.359 of 2016 dated 22.12.2023.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

3. The suit has been originally filed by the plaintiff for specific performance to enforce the contract dated 13.11.2014 executed by the defendant for sale of the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the date of agreement a sum of Rs.13 lakhs advance has been paid and it is agreed between the parties that the sale shall be completed within a period of 11 months. The plaintiff was already ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On 03.06.2015, the plaintiff approached the defendant for completing the sale. The defendant was not ready on that date and at her request registration was fixed on 15.06.2015 However on 14.06.2015, the defendant informed that she is not in station therefore, she was unable to perform her part of the contract. Therefore, legal notice has been issued on 28.09.2015 The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

5. It is the stand of the defendant that she had received only Rs.3 lakhs amount as loan from the plaintiff and agreed to execute mortgage. However, the plaintiff taking advantage of the urgency and need of money by the defendant, had prepared the sale agreement instead of mortgage deed. The defendant has signed the document under the impression that it is only a mortgage. However, only after receipt of notice he came to know that the document has been created as a sale agreement. Hence, disputed the agreement.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed :

1. Whether the parties to the suit sale agreement have entered into that agreement with consensus ad idem or not?

2. Whether the defendant is right in saying that she has no need to sell the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the execution of suit sale agreement is proper or not?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance upon the suit sale agreement?

5. To what other reliefs, the parties to the suit are entitled?

7. Though the issue as to readiness was also framed earlier, but the same has been recasted as above.

8. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 have been marked. On the side of the defendant, she examined herself as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 have been marked.

9. The trial Court appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence has exercised discretion and negatived the relief of specific performance and granted alternative relief for return of advance amount with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of agreement till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter, 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

10. The Appeal in A.S.No.162 of 2024 has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit for specific performance and granting alternative relief of return of the advance amount paid by the Plaintiff.

11. The Appeal in A.S.No.1019 of 2024 has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court challenging the alternative relief granted by the trial Court.

12. As both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, both the appeals are disposed by way of a common judgment.

13. The lead case is Appeal Suit in A.S.No.162 of 2022. According to the the plaintiff, the defence of the defendant that it is a loan transaction has not been established. Ex.A.1 is a registered sale agreement. Having admitted the execution of the sale agreement, now the defendant cannot take a contrary view than the terms of the contract. Such a stand is hit by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, once the defence set up by the defendant is found to be false, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to specific performance. The trial C