The court emphasized the necessity for the plaintiff to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and that unexplained delays undermine the claim for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

The First Appeal in A.S.(MD)No.55 of 2024 is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 08.06.2023, in O.S.No.9 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Judge (FTC), Tenkasi.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the 1^st respondent herein, the 1^st defendant in the suit is the 2^nd respondent herein, 2^nd and 4^th defendants are the appellants herein, 5 to 8 defendants are the 3 to 6 respondents. The 3^rd defendant died during pendency of the suit and the defendants 5 to 7 were impleaded as defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for of specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 21.09.2015. The brief facts as stated in the plaint is that originally the schedule of property belonged to one Paulraj, the husband of 1^st defendant, father of 2 to 4 defendants. Pending suit, the 3^rd defendant died and his legal heirs are impleaded as 5 to 8 defendants.. The plaintiff and the husband of 1^st defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4 namely Paulraj had entered into a registered sale agreement dated 21.09.2015 in Doc. No.3243 / 2009 relating to the schedule of property. The sale amount was fixed at Rs.20,00,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was paid and agreed to complete the sale before 20.01.2016. The said Paulraj stated that in order to lay the access road, the nearby land is necessary and to purchase the same, again the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the same is on 19.02.2017. As per the said sale agreement the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the said Paulraj did not come to complete his part of the contract stating that the road issue. Thereafter the plaintiff requested the said Paulraj to execute sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. But the said Paulraj delayed by stating one reason or the other. The plaintiff issued registered Legal Notice to the said Paulraj on 24.10.2017, but he did not receive the same. But the plaintiff repeated requested the said Paulraj to complete the sale. In the meanwhile, the said Paulraj died on 31.10.2018 leaving the defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs. Thereafter the plaintiff approached the legal heirs several times and informed about the sale agreement and requested them to complete the same. But the legal heirs also were not coming forward to complete the sale based on the sale agreement. Hence the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.9/2019 on 18.01.2019 against the defendants for specific performance on the basis of sale agreement dated 21.09.2015 and was ready to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- in the Court.

4. The 4^th defendant had filed the written statement and the same was adopted by the 1^st defendant and 6 to 8 defendants. The defendants had stated that the suit property belongs to their Paulraj. The alleged sale agreement was executed as security for the loan transaction. The 2^nd defendant had borrowed loan from the plaintiff on 21.09.2015 and for the said loan, the alleged sale agreement was obtained. There was no necessity to sell the suit property by the father. The burden of repaying the loan amount to the plaintiff is on the 2^nd defendant alone who went abroad. The value of the suit property is Rs.80,00,000/-, but in the plaint it is stated that the sale agreement was entered for Rs.20,00,000/- only, which would indicate that the alleged sale agreement is executed for security purpose.

5. The plaintiff had examined himself