A suit for specific performance is not maintainable without a prayer for declaratory relief regarding the cancellation of the agreement, and the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

JUDGMENT :

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The unsuccessful defendant in the suit is the appellant in the present appeal.

2. The respondents/defendants filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance based on the sale agreement marked as Ex.A4, dated 30.08.2007. After the trial, the suit was decreed in their favor, leading to the present appeal.

3. The title of the appellant/defendant to the suit property is not disputed by the respondents.

4. As per the pleadings, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the above suit alleging that the first plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on 29.08.2003 through two separate documents, marked as Exs.A1 and A2. Under the lease, the defendants received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as advance, and the agreed monthly rent was Rs.9,000/-. It was further pleaded that the defendants subsequently offered to sell the property for a total consideration of Rs.45,01,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, a sale agreement was entered into on 10.04.2007, marked as Ex.A3 (only a xerox copy has been filed, subject to objection). On the same day, the defendants received a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- as advance, which included the earlier sum of Rs.7,00,000/- paid under the lease agreement.

5. Besides the plaintiff, two other individuals were also tenants. It was further pleaded that a post-dated cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/-, dated 15.09.2007, was issued, and the balance sale consideration was Rs.31,73,000/

6. It should be noted that the initial suit appears to have been based on Ex.A3, a xerox copy of the sale deed dated 10.04.2007. Subsequently, the plaint was re-presented with a prayer for the inclusion of Ex.A4.

7(a). As per the decree of the lower court, the plaint was presented on 04.02.2008. The value of the suit is stated to be Rs. 45,01,000/-, which represents the sale consideration fixed in Ex.A3, and a court fee of Rs.3,37,575.50/- was paid based on the sale consideration mentioned in the xerox copy of the sale deed (Ex.A3). However, the prayer is for the specific performance of the sale agreement in Ex.A4, dated 30.08.2007, which is discussed further below. (b) Subsequently, the plaint proceeds on the basis that the suit sale agreement, Ex.A4, was entered into on 30.08.2007, for a sale consideration of Rs.1,648,000/- and the original agreement dated 10.04.2007 (Ex.A3) – a xerox copy – was only provided with a cross marked on it. The admissibility of Ex.A3 will be discussed infra.

8. There is a plea that possession was handed over to him pursuant to the Ex.A4 agreement. Additionally, readiness and willingness have been pleaded, and the plaintiff has sought specific performance of the suit sale agreement, Ex.A4, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,28,000/

9. A written statement has been filed by the defendants. In their written statement, the defendants have categorically denied Ex.A3 and further stated that the plaintiff, being only a tenant, was not handed possession pursuant to the sale agreement. They also stated that eviction proceedings were initiated due to a default in the payment of rent, and the defendants/landlord filed eviction proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 22 of 2008.

10. As per the pleadings in the written statement, the plaintiff admitted that, under Ex.A4, he offered to sell the scheduled property for a sale consideration of Rs.16,48,000/- and received an advance of Rs.3,20,000/-. An agreement dated 03.08.2007 was entered into between the parties. The plaintiff denied that Ex.A3 is a valid document, describing it as a fabricated one. The plea of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff was also specifically denied. Since the date fixed for the completion of the suit sale agreement had passed, the defendant issued a termination notice under Ex.A5. In response, the plaintiff sent a reply notice (Ex.A6) to the defendant, to which the defendant issued a rejoinder notice on 01.01.2008, marked as Ex.A7.

11. It is the specific case of the defendants that, as per the terms of the a