A plaintiff must establish both readiness and willingness to perform a contract to seek specific performance; failure to do so renders the claim unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Challenging the decree and judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit for specific performance, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendants.

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

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants had executed an agreement for sale of the property and the agreement has also been registered for a total sale consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs on 19.11.2011 and received a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as an advance on the same day. It is agreed between the parties that the sale shall be completed within a period of 24 months. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to purchase property and approached the defendants repeatedly to produce original title deeds. However, the defendants have not produced the original documents. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 21.08.2023 which has been replied by the defendants contending that it is only a loan transaction. Hence, the suit.

4. It is the contention of the defendants that one Elumalai has borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs under a promissory note dated 03.10.2011 from the plaintiff agreeing to return the said amount within a period of 24 months. The first defendant is the co-brother of the said Elumalai and as a collateral security, the documents have been handed over to the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the sale agreement was never intended for sale of the property. The allegation that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract is also denied. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract?

2. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W3 have been examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 have been marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 have been examined and Ex.B.1 has been marked. Apart from that Ex.X.1 and Ex.C.1 have been marked.

7. The trial Court considering entire evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the present Appeal Suit came to be filed.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that Ex.A.1 never intended for sale of the property, but came to be executed in a loan transaction. The amount has been borrowed by one Elumalai. The first defendant, being the co-brother of this said Elumalai, was directed to execute the sale agreement. According to him, the sale agreement is not intended for sale. Further, even assuming that there is a sale agreement, the plaintiff has not established readiness and willingness from the inception of the agreement. The legal notice has been issued just two month prior to the expiry of the agreement period. Thereafter, the suit has been filed on 18.11.2021. Hence, it is his contention that absolutely, there is no readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. He has not established his wherewithal to purchase the property. It is his further contention that the plaintiff himself has filed an application in I.A.No.1474 of 2023 seeking permission for depositing the remaining sale consideration and the said application has been allowed by the trial Court by an Order dated 21.08.2014 and permitted the plaintiff to deposit the amount. However, till the disposal of the suit after 7 years of the above Order, the balance sale consideration has not been deposited. The same clearly indicate that readiness and willingness has not been established on the part of the plaintiff.

9. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the agreement has been registered and the plaintiff has established readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The legal notice has also been sent to the defendants on 21.08.2013 calling upon the defendants to ex