For specific performance, a plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as per their ranking in A.S.No.34 of 2015.

2. The defeated 1^st defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2010 is the appellant in A.S.No.34 of 2015. The very same person also filed O.S.No. 32 of 2012 for permanent injunction and the same was dismissed and hence, he filed the appeal in A.S(MD)No.57 of 2016.

3. The defeated first defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2010 has filed the above A.S.(MD) No.34 of 2015. The first respondent / plaintiff filed O.S.No.3 of 2010, before the Principal District Court, Karur, for specific performance of the agreement entered into between him and the appellant herein. The appellant herein is the owner of the suit property and he agreed to sell the same for Rs.23,50,000/- per acre. He received Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance on 01.11.2009 from the first respondent herein and thereafter, he failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the first respondent. Hence, the first respondent filed the suit for specific performance. Another suit in O.S.No.32 of 2012 was filed by the appellant herein for injunction against the first respondent herein and others. A joint trial was conducted in both the suits. The suit filed for specific performance was decreed and the suit filed for injunction was dismissed. Hence, the present appeals.

4. Mr.AK.Duraisamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff has miserably failed to show his ready and willingness to perform his part of contract and this aspect has been overlooked by the Trial Court. He would further contend that if the amount is not paid by the plaintiff within the stipulated time, then the suit is to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in the case of Ramaswami Kone vs. Sundara Kone , reported in 1907 SCC Online Mad 57 and Gopala Aiyar and another vs. Sannasi , reported in AIR 1917 Mad 838 and hence, he prayed for setting aside the Judgment passed by the Trial Court.

5. The following points arise for consideration in A.S.No.34 of 2015:

(i) Whether there is an agreement of sale between the parties as pleaded by the plaintiff on 01.11.2009?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree due to non-deposit of balance sale consideration pending suit?

(iv) Whether the Trial Court's Judgment needs interference for non-compliance of the decree, namely, deposit of the balance sale consideration?

6. It appears that by order dated 26.06.2024, a telephonic information was directed to be received from the Trial Court as to whether the plaintiff had deposited any balance sale consideration as stipulated in the decree.

7. Hence, Registry was directed to get a report (in writing) from the Trial Court as to whether the plaintiff had deposited any balance sale consideration as stipulated in the decree dated 30.01.2014 passed by the Trial Court before the next hearing date.

8. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Karur, by communication dated 02.11.2024 submitted that the balance of sale consideration has not been deposited by the plaintiff as stipulated in the decree dated 02.11.2024.

9. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Duraisamy appearing for the appellant/1^st defendant would state that the ready and willingness of the alleged agreement holder was not at all discussed by the learned District Judge. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No.200 of 1915 dated 12^th November 1915, wherein this Court has held that the First Court's decree fixed a particular date before which the money is to be paid. In this case, as is further pointed out, the money was not offered till long after one month from the date of the appellate decree.

10. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

11. Before the trial Court, the agreement hold