Unilateral revocation of a sale agreement without clear notice is invalid; the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness to perform for specific performance to be granted.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. This Second Appeal is directed by the first defendant in the Original Suit, who was unsuccessful before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated July 16, 2018, passed in A.S.No.27 of 2016 by the 'Principal District Court, Vellore' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'], confirming the Judgment and Decree dated February 16, 2016 passed in O.S.No.117 of 2006 by the 'Subordinate Court, Vellore' [henceforth 'Trial Court'].

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. The Suit Property absolutely belongs to the first defendant, whose sister is the second defendant. The first defendant and the plaintiff entered into Sale Agreement dated May 26, 2006 whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase the Suit Property for a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-, of which, Rs.75,000/- was paid upfront as advance. As per the Sale Agreement, the first defendant had to execute Sale Deed on or before August 25, 2006 upon receiving the balance sale consideration.

3.1. While the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the Sale Agreement, the first defendant in collusion with his sister / second defendant is evading from performing his part. Notices were exchanged between the parties. The first defendant returned a sum of Rs.85,500/- by way of Demand Draft, which was sent along with his legal notice dated July 20, 2006, wherein he falsely alleged that the problem between the parties was sorted and plaintiff agreed to receive the refund of advance money along with damages. The first defendant has no right to unilaterally revoke the Sale Agreement. Hence the Suit for specific performance.

FIRST DEFENDANT'S CASE

4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, he has admitted the factum of Sale Agreement and its terms as stated in the plaint. However, he denied that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the Sale Agreement. The plaintiff who is a Government servant failed to obtain permission for purchasing the Suit Property. Accordingly to the first defendant, while he was ready and willing to perform his part of the Sale Agreement, his sister – Menaga / second defendant issued a legal notice to the plaintiff falsely claiming share over the Suit Property. She was in actual possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property, and refused to vacate it. On the other hand, the plaintiff insisted on delivery of possession immediately after execution of Sale Deed. Eventually, the matter was sorted out and the plaintiff agreed to rescind the contract upon receiving the advance of Rs.75,000/- along with Rs.10,500/- towards damages. However, when the first defendant approached the plaintiff with the said sum, the plaintiff refused to keep up his word. Hence, the first defendant issued the legal notice dated July 20, 2006 and sent a Demand Draft for Rs.85,500/- along with it, to the plaintiff. The same was received by the plaintiff on July 29, 2006, but the plaintiff failed to return the original Sale Agreement. As such, there is no Sale Agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the Original Suit.

SECOND DEFENDANT

5. The second defendant, who is the sister of the first defendant, was impleaded in the Suit as per the Order passed in I.A.No.118 of 2007 in the Original Suit. She remained ex-parte before the Trial Court.

TRIAL COURT

6. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.10 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defe