In suits for specific performance, plaintiffs must prove the agreement's genuineness and continuous readiness to perform, particularly when execution is disputed.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Maria Clete, J.

This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2018 in O.S. No.550 of 2012 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, whereby the suit for specific performance and consequential reliefs came to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this appeal as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiff’s case is that she instituted the suit for specific performance on the basis of an alleged sale agreement dated 21.07.2010, stated to have been executed between her and late R. Balasubramaniam, in respect of one acre of land forming part of his 60% undivided share in the suit property. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.20,00,000/-, and the plaintiff claims to have paid an advance of Rs.15,00,000/-. The time stipulated for completion of the sale was two years from 20.07.2010. According to the plaintiff, she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract; however, the vendor did not execute the sale deed and died on 31.01.2012. Thereafter, notwithstanding the issuance of legal notice and exchange of correspondence, the defendants, being the legal heirs of the deceased vendor, failed to execute the sale deed, compelling her to file the present suit. In the alternative, the plaintiff seeks refund of the advance amount with interest and also prays for permanent injunction.

4. The defendants have filed a written statement denying the plaintiff’s claim in toto. While admitting the relationship between the parties and that late R. Balasubramaniam held 6/10 share in the suit property along with the co-owner S.A. Thangavelu, the defendants specifically contend that no agreement for sale was executed by late R. Balasubramaniam in favour of the plaintiff and that the alleged agreement is a fabricated and manipulated document. The defendants also dispute payment of any advance and contend that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to pay such a huge sum. They further point out inconsistencies relating to the date of the alleged agreement and the stamp paper said to have been used. According to the defendants, the property had already been developed into an approved layout known as “Sabari Gardens” and several plots had been sold, rendering the alleged agreement improbable. The defendants also deny the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness, raise a plea of non-joinder of a necessary party, dispute the cause of action, and contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance.

5. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and an attesting witness as PW-2, and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as DW-1 and the co-owner as DW-2, and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

6. The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff had failed to establish the genuineness and enforceability of the alleged sale agreement. The Court further held that the plaintiff had not satisfactorily proved her continuous readiness and willingness, which is a mandatory requirement for grant of specific performance. It was also observed that the nature of property being an undivided share in a larger extent jointly owned with a third party, coupled with the disputed nature of the agreement, disentitled the plaintiff to the discretionary relief. In that view, the suit came to be dismissed.

7. Aggrieved, the plaintiff have preferred the present appeal contending, inter alia, that the Trial Court erred in disbelieving Ex.A2 solely on account of the date/stamp discrepancy; failed to du