In a suit for specific performance, the Plaintiff must prove the genuineness of the agreement and his readiness to perform, failing which the suit must be dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 15.04.2013 made in A.S.No.81 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Erode reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2012 passed in O.S. No. 215 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Erode.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Appeal are referred to as per their status before the trial Court, the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Erode as “Plaintiff” and “Defendants” throughout the discussion hereafterwards.

3. The first Defendant in O.S. No. 215 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Erode is the Appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit in O.S. No. 215 of 2019 was filed by the first Respondent, as Plaintiff, for the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 24.10.2007.

4. As per the plaint averments, the first Defendant/Appellant was the owner of the suit scheduled property. On 24.10.2007, an agreement of sale was entered into between the Plaintiff and first Defendant. As per the agreement of sale dated 24.10.2007, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff as advance. According to the Plaintiff, within 18 months from the date of execution of the agreement of sale, the sale deed has to be executed by the first Defendant by receiving the balance sale consideration. However, the Plaintiff states that time was not the essence of the contract. It is also stated that even though the Plaintiff expressed his readiness and willingness to get the contract concluded by paying the balance sale consideration, for the reasons best known to the first Defendant, procrastinated the execution of the sale deed. During December 2008, when the Plaintiff demanded the first Defendant to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration, he was informed that he had already sold the property to the second Defendant. When the first Defendant had entered into an agreement of sale, the first Defendant ought to have executed the sale deed only in favour of the Plaintiff. On the other hand, during the subsistence of the agreement of sale between the Plaintiff and first Defendant, the first Defendant had unceremoniously executed the sale deed in favour of the second Defendant and it will not bind the Plaintiff. Therefore, the suit was filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property to third parties.

5. On notice, the first Defendant filed a written statement denying the entire plaint averments. It is the contention of the first Defendant that he had never entered into any sale agreement dated 24.10.2007 or received any sale consideration from the Plaintiff. It is his contention that his signature has been forged and sale agreement fabricated