The plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform a contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and failure to do so negates entitlement to specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

(R. SAKTHIVEL, J.)

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 28, 2014, passed in A.S.No.09 of 2013 by the 'Additional District and Sessions Court, Hosur' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated December 21, 2012 passed in O.S.No.35 of 2011 by the 'Subordinate Court, Hosur' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was reversed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit before the Trial Court.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. Originally the Suit Property belonged to the first defendant vide registered Sale Deed (Document No.137/1995). Defendants 2 to 4 are the children of the first defendant. Due to financial needs, the defendants decided to sell the Suit Property. Through mediators, they agreed to sell it to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.9,30,000/- and executed a registered Sale Agreement dated March 19, 2010 in Document No.1070/2010 on the file of SRO, Kelamangalam and received an advance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- while agreeing to execute Sale Deed within four months upon payment of the balance Rs.30,000/-.

3.1. The plaintiff was ready and willing to complete the transaction and in July 2010, requested the defendants to produce the original documents for verification, but they sought more time. In December 2010, when the plaintiff insisted on execution of Sale Deed, the defendants demanded more money against the terms of the Sale Agreement and when the plaintiff refused, the defendants threatened to sell the Suit Property to third parties. Even after the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated February 1, 2011 (which the defendants 1 and 4 received and defendants 2 and 3 refused to accept), the defendants did not perform their part of the contract. Since the defendants breached the Sale Agreement, the plaintiff has filed this Suit for specific performance.

DEFENDANTS' CASE

4. The defendants filed written statement stating that the Suit Sale Agreement dated March 19, 2010 was created as a security for another sale transaction; it is not intended to be a real Sale Agreement. Before the Suit Sale Agreement, one Ramakka, one Narasimhaiah and 42 others agreed to sell certain properties in 4 different Survey Numbers to the sons of V.Mohamed Abdullah of Bangalore for Rs.20,00,000/- and entered into a Sale Agreement dated July 17, 2009. A sum of Rs.10,70,000/- was given as advance and the remaining Rs.9,30,000/- was to be paid within 5 months. Pursuantly, Sale Deed was executed in respect of the properties except one Survey Number viz., Survey No.761/1B, an extent of 1 Acre 1 Cent. The defendants, plaintiff and one Udhaya Shankar acted as brokers for the sale transaction. The Bangalore buyers (sons of V.Mohamed Abdullah) demanded security for the sale of the remaining property viz., Survey No.761/1B, insisting to execute a Sale Agreement in respect of some other property in favour of the plaintiff, who is related to the Bangalore buyers. Hence, the defendants executed the Suit Sale Agreement in favour of plaintiff as a Security. The defendants never intended to sell the Suit Property to the plaintiff. On the same day of Suit Sale Agreement i.e., March 19, 2010, the plaintiff executed another Agreement in the name and style of “Edhiradi Muchalika in favour of the defendants for Rs.9,30,000/-. The Suit Property is also covered under Sale Agreement dated July 17, 2009, whereby the defendants agreed to sell it to the Bangalore Buyers. Hence, the Sale Agreement is nominal and executed for security purposes for sale of Survey No.761/1B only. No amoun