The court established that lack of evidence for readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations resulted in the dismissal of specific performance claims, as well as any requests for refunds due to limitations.

JUDGMENT :

(G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

The suits for specific performance filed by these three appellants against the vendors, who are common to all three suits, but had sold their land in three separate parts to the appellants, were dismissed by the Trial Court through a common judgment. Hence, these three appeals have been filed.

2. Brief facts for better understanding of the dispute:

The property in question, comprised in R.S.No.7 and 8/2 (Part) T.S.No.11/7, Door No.23/1, Block No.11 at Nelson Manickam Road, Vada Agaram No.173, Madras-29 within the Registration Sub District of Kodambakkam and Registration District of Madras, measuring a total of 3 grounds and 1800 sq.ft., was owned by M/s. Delux Tools and Moulders, a partnership firm represented by its partners, including Mr.O.M. Shahul Hameed, O.M. Syed Ahmed and O.M.S Ahmed Ibrahim. On 04.09.1996, the following three plaintiffs entered into separate sale agreements with defendants 1 to 4, who are common to all three suits:

1. Ms.Nisha Pritha Kakkumanu, plaintiff in O.S. No.12016 of 2010, agreed to purchase 2,796.1 sq.ft. of land for a total consideration of Rs.24,00,000/-, and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance.

2. Mr.Sarath Kakkumanu, plaintiff in O.S. No.12149 of 2010, agreed to purchase 2,520.65 sq.ft. of land for Rs.24,00,000/-, and paid Rs.13,00,000/- as advance.

3. M/s.Club Pioneer (India) Private Limited, plaintiff in O.S. No. 13637 of 2010 (represented by its Director, Mr. Sarath Kakkumanu, also the plaintiff in O.S. No. 12149 of 2010), agreed to purchase 3,683.25 sq.ft. of land for Rs. 24,00,000/-, and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance.

As per the agreements, the time for performance was fixed at four months, subject to the vendors (defendants 1 to 4) handing over vacant possession and producing the Income Tax Clearance certificate before registration.

3. However, the time frame could not be adhered to, as:

• The title documents were hypotheticated with the Kilpauk Benefit Fund.

• The property was in possession of tenants.

• The defendants were unable to redeem the property or obtain possession or documents, thereby failing to fulfill the contract conditions.

Initially, time was treated as the essence of the contract. However, the defendants continued to receive part payments from the plaintiffs on different dates, indicating that both parties treated time as non-essential. Meanwhile, the defendants, along with adjacent landowners such as Saral Beevi and others, applied to the MMDA for reclassification of the land from residential to commercial use. This request was made first in 1997 and again in 2000.

4. Despite ongoing payments and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs to perform their contractual obligations, the defendants failed to:

• Obtain the income tax clearance certificate,

• Vacate the tenants from the suit property,

• Retrieve the title documents from Kilpauk Benefit Fund.

While matters stood thus, on 10.03.2001, the defendants entered into a transaction with the 5^th defendant, selling the entire property, measuring 3 grounds and 1800 sq.ft., along with the building, by executing a sale deed in his favour vide Document No. 2475 of 2001. The 5^th defendant purchased the property with full knowledge of the plaintiffs’ prior agreements. He purchased the property without any benefit on his part just to divide the interest of the plaintiffs.

5. After executing the sale deed, the defendants withdrew the MMDA reclassification proposal. As a result, the pl