The court reaffirmed that equitable relief via specific performance requires proven readiness and legitimate title, emphasizing the importance of the parties' conduct, especially regarding collusion to defeat others' rights.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the Judgment and Decree dated September 13, 2017 passed in A.S.No.65 of 2013 by the 'II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated January 17, 2013 passed in O.S.No.12 of 2009 by the ‘Subordinate Court, Chidambaram' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.

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

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff's father -Krishnamurthy and first defendant's father - Kuppusamy are cousins. The second defendant is the plaintiff's brother's wife. The father of first defendant left India at the age of 15 and permanently settled at Singapore and married one Mariammal there. They have one son viz., first defendant, and four daughters. All the daughters are married and settled in Singapore. In 1965, first defendant’s parents came to India and purchased some of the Suit Properties in their name separately and some in the name of first defendant who was then minor, and left India allowing the plaintiff's father - Krishnamurthy to possess and cultivate the Suit Properties as cultivating tenant. According to the plaintiff, the Suit Properties were cultivated by his father - Krishnamurthy, as a tenant since 1965 under agreements with the first defendant’s parents, who were permanent residents of Singapore and on April 27, 1982, first defendant’s mother entered into a registered Lease Agreement with the plaintiff's father in respect of the Suit Properties.

3.1. While so, on February 22, 2008, the first defendant offered to sell the Suit Properties to the plaintiff for Rs.5 Lakhs and an agreement was executed on the same day and the plaintiff also paid an advance amount of Rs.10,000/-. It was mutually agreed that within a period of 69 days from the date of agreement, the plaintiff should pay the balance sale price of Rs.4,90,000/- to the first defendant and get the Sale Deed executed from him. However, the first defendant, in collusion with the plaintiff's elder brother -Panchamirtham and his wife (second defendant), executed a Sale Deed in favour of second defendant on February 29, 2008 in respect of Suit Properties. Hence, the plaintiff sent a Legal Notice on March 31, 2008 to the second defendant and received Reply Notice after three months on June 18, 2008 with false allegations. The second defendant has never been in actual and physical possession of the Suit Properties as absolute owner and she never carried on agricultural operations therein. The Sale Deed executed in favour of second defendant will not bind the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the Suit for Specific Performance of Contract.

DEFENDANTS' CASE

4. The first defendant remained ex-parte

5. The second defendant, plaintiff’s sister-in-law, filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. The second defendant denied the execution of Suit Sale Agreement on February 22, 2008 in favour of the plaintiff as well as the receipt of advance of Rs.10,000/- by first defendant. According to her, part of Item No.3 and entirety of Item Nos.5 to 13 & 16 were purchased by the first defendant’s father. Item Nos.14 and 15 were purchased by first defendant’s mother. Item Nos.1, 2, 4, and 17 along with the remaining part of It