The requirement of readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance is a factual determination, and failure to prove these elements can lead to dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Aggrieved over the order of dismissal dated 29/7/2022 made in O.S.No.20 of 2011, by the learned III Additional District Judge at Puducherry, appellant is before this Court.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Appeal Suit are as follows:-

The subject property was originally owned by one Rajamani Appavou @ Sandanamarie, who died intestate leaving behind her three daughters namely Amala Marie, Rachel Marie and Marie Source Rozarie as her legal heirs. Amala Marie died intestate leaving behind the respondents/defendants as her legal heirs. Rachel Marie died leaving behind Marie Joseph Iroudayaradja Antoine Paul Divi, Gisele Antoinette Divi and Rene Antoine Michel Divi, as her legal heirs. Marie Souce Rozaire died as a spinster. The defendants have become the owners of the property by way of inheritance. Power Agent J.A.Kannabiran, agreed to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.17,15,000/- and the agreement came to be executed on 22/4/2009 and received Rs.2,50,000/- as an advance. The agreement was extended on 29/7/2009. It is agreed between the parties that the sale shall be completed after receiving the balance sale consideration, but the defendants have not chosen to furnish the original title deeds before the execution of the sale deed for his verification.

3. Though the plaintiff/appellant herein has expressed his willingness to purchase the property on several occasions, the defendants have not chosen to furnish the required documents to execute the sale deed. Hence, appellant had issued a legal notice to the defendants on 15/11/2010. As the previous Power of Attorney was cancelled by the defendants, Power of Attorney was also made as a party representing the defendants. Hence,the suit for specific performance.

4. It is the case of the defendants that the suit property was originally purchased by Emile Appavou, S/o Devarambin Appavou, on 2/5/1911. The said Emile Appavou has donated the suit property to his mother Maria Susaiammalle Appavou through a Notarial Donation Deed dated 30/12/1926 which was registered on 5/1/1927. Emile Appavou died on 9/8/1944 at Pondicherry and his death was registered before the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Pondicherry Municipality under Registration No.1312/1944. The said Maria Susaiammalle Appavou donated the suit property to her grand daughter Rajamani @ Sandanamarie Appavou by a Notarial Donation Deed, dated 10/1/1927. The said Rajamani @ Sanadanamarie Appavou died on 26/11/1936, leaving behind four daughters. The legal heirs of Emile Appavou filed the suit for declaration of legal heirs in O.S.No.347 of 1980 which was decreed on 29/4/1980. Antoinette Marie Josephine Papammallee Appavou gave birth to nine children, out of which only seven children are alive.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff has been ready to perform his part of the agreement?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance as claimed?

3. To what relief?

6. Based on the plaint and written statement, following issues were recasted:-

1. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

2. Is it true that the defendants have executed General Power of Attorney deed in favour of Kannabiram only to look after and maintain the suit properties and not to sell the suit property?

3. Whether the sale agreement dated 24/4/2009 and 7/6/2009 are true and genuine or sham and nominal documents as alleged by the defendants?

4. Is it true that the sale agreement was not supported by consideration?

5. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance?

7. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

7. On the side of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On the side of the respondents, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.24 were marked.

8. The trial Court, afte