The court affirmed that a sale agreement is enforceable when the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness to perform, and the defendants fail to substantiate claims against the agreement.

ORDER :

Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting specific performance, the present appeal came to be filed by the unsuccessful defendants.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of case is as follows:

The defendants, being the owners of the property, agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs and executed an agreement on 18.07.2012 by receiving a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as advance. After execution of the agreement, the defendants also received a further sum of Rs.30,000/-. Sale agreement was registered on the file of Sub-Registrar, Thirukkanur. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to purchase the suit property. The plaintiff has also informed the defendants to execute the sale deed after the receipt of remaining sale consideration. As the defendants have not come forward to execute the document, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 28.02.2015 calling upon the defendants to come forward to execute the sale deed. Said notice was received by the first defendant on 07.03.2015 and fourth defendant on 02.03.2015 and defendants 2 and 3 have not claimed legal notice. The fifth defendant has not received the notice though he was available in the very same address. Hence, the suit.

4. The stand of the defendants in the written statement filed by the third defendant and adopted by others is that they never executed a sale agreement to sell the property for Rs.10 lakhs on 18.07.2012 and received a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as advance. It is their case that the plaintiff and the second defendant are friends and second defendant has borrowed a hand loan from the plaintiff and only for the purpose of said loan, a registered sale agreement was executed as collateral security. The defendants denied the fact that the plaintiff was ready and willing. The defendants state that the property is the property of the defendants and the entire transaction is based on a hand loan obtained by the second defendant from the plaintiff.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court:

1. Whether the sale agreement dated 18.07.2012 is true, valid and enforceable?

2. Is it true that the second defendant borrowed hand loan from the plaintiff for which the sale agreement was executed as security as alleged by D3?

3. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform the contract?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?

5. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

6. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8 and on the side of the defendants, third defendant was examined as DW1, but no documents were marked.

7. The trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on both side, answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants are before this Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants would submit that Ex.A1 is never intended for sale of the property and it was executed as a collateral security in respect of a loan transaction. According to learned counsel, only a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was borrowed from the plaintiff to meet out the family expenses of the appellants/defendants. The three years period fixed in the sale agreement to complete the sale itself would probabilize the defence theory that Ex.A1 is not intended for sale of property. Further, the market value of the property at the relevant point of time is much higher and therefore, the very sale agreement itself is doubtful. Further, the plaintiff has also not proved readiness and willingness.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the defence taken by the defendants are vague in nature. Further, the stand of the defendants that the second defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4