The court upheld that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance due to vague property description and explicit stipulations regarding time, leading to automatic cancellation of the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

1. This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.15 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore dated 31.01.2011.

2. The unsuccessful Plaintiff is the Appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff has filed a Suit in O.S.No.15 of 2009 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 14.09.2006/Ex.A1. Written statement has been filed by the Defendant in the Suit denying that Ex.A1/suit sale agreement was came into force by exercising undue influence and it was stated that the Defendant is at the advanced age related medical issues. It is further stated that in view of the default clause contained in Ex.A1, agreement itself has become cancelled and the advance amount stands forfeited and he is not ready and willing to perform the contract and the description of the property in the agreement is insufficient for specific performance and he prayed for dismissal.

4. After trial, following issues have been framed by the trial Court:

“1. Whether Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance as per the sale agreement, dated 14.09.2006?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his legal representatives, or agents from alienating the suit property to third parties?

3. To what other relief if any?”

5. During trial, on the side of the Plaintiff, PW1 & PW2 were examined, Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked and on the side of the Defendant, DW1 was examined and no document was marked.

6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court come to the conclusion that Ex.A1 sale deed was not executed due to undue influence and Ex.A1/suit sale agreement is true and genuine, however, the trial Court held that the Plaintiff has failed to prove necessary ingredients of specific relief viz., ready and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff and there is no proper description of the property in the schedule. Hence for uncertainty in the schedule of the property, rejected the suit. Hence the Appeal.

7. Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior counsel, for Mr.K.Muthukumarasamy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.N.C.Thirumalai Balaji, learned counsel for Mr.P.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for R2 & R3. Perused the records of the trial Court.

8. The suit was filed on 21.08.2007. The suit sale agreement is on14.09.2006. As per the terms of the agreement three months time is fixed and hence, the sale transaction ought to have been completed on or before 13.12.2006. Ex.A2 is the legal notice dated 01.03.2007.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant would contend that for Ex.A2/legal notice, there was no reply, however, in the written statement at paragraph No.18, the Defendant chosen to deny the receipt of Ex.A2 on the ground that the address mentioned in Ex.A2, is different from the notice address mentioned in Ex.A1/suit sale agreement. So is the evidence of DW1, who is the wife of the Defendant . The Owner/vendor has not entered the witness box, citing medical grounds and his