The absence of a fixed time for performance in a sale agreement does not invalidate claims for specific performance when the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations.

JUDGMENT :

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

This Letter Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.1998 made in A.S.No.407 of 1984 by this Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.11.1983 made in O.S.No.54 of 1981 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam.

2. The deceased first respondent filed a suit against the respondents 2 to 8 for specific performance in O.S.No.54 of 1981 before the Sub Court, Kumbakonam. After trial, the trial Judge rejected the relief of specific performance and passed the judgment and decree against the first respondent therein only for recovery of a sum of Rs.1101/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 06.06.1970 till the date of decree and the subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum with proportionate costs. Aggrieved over the said judgement and decree the plaintiff therein filed an appeal before this Court in A.S.No.407 of 1984. The learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments on either side, set aside the decree passed by the learned Sub Judge and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for, and dismissed the cross objection. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents 9 to 13 in the said appeal filed the present Letters Patent Appeal before this Court.

3. For ease of reference, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case as per the plaint is that the first defendant is the owner of the suit properties bearing Door No.11A, 11B and 11C. Since the plaintiff was residing in one of the houses as tenant, the first defendant approached the plaintiff through a broker by name one Subramanian and informed that he was in dare need of money to conduct the marriage of his daughter. After some negotiation, the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a sale agreement dated 06.06.1979 wherein the first defendant agreed to sell the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.39,000/- and received an advance of Rs.1101/- in the presence of the said broker Subramanian. No time was prescribed in the sale agreement. However, it was agreed by the parties that whenever the plaintiff called upon, the first defendant to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration. On the date of agreement, the first defendant gave a registration copy of the parent document namely, partition deed dated 05.09.1979. Thereafter even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the first defendant was postponing the sale. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant in collusion with the second defendant attempted to sell the suit properties to the second and third defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a telegram to the defendants 1 to 3 and further she intimated to the first defendant that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and also ready to get the sale deed in her favour. She also issued notice to the defendants 1 to 3 dated 30.03.1981 for which they replied on 03.04.1981, 06.04.1981 & 13.04.1981 respectively and made false allegations. However, subsequently, the second and third defendants entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant on 23.02.1981 for the purchase of the suit properties. The said agreement is not genuine which was concocted by the defendants 1 to 3. After issuing pre-suit notice, the first defendant sold the suit property to the defendants 2 to 5 and 9. The defendants 2 to 5 & 9