The court ruled that specific performance requires proof of intent to sell, and failure to prove such intent negates the right to enforce the agreement against the defendant.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. This Second Appeal is preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 13.06.2023 passed in A.S. No.22 of 2020, on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 26.07.2019 passed in O.S. No.95 of 2015, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram.

2. The unsuccessful defendants before the first appellate Court have preferred the present Second Appeal. The respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit in O.S. No.95/2015 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram, against the defendant Murugan, for the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement dated 01.03.2012 marked as Ex.A1, which has been notarized on 03.03.2012. The 2^nd defendant is the subsequent purchaser, while the appeal was pending. The trial court, partly decreed the suit directing the 1^st defendant to repay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and dismissed the specific performance relief and the counter claim of returning certain document was allowed, against which, the plaintiff preferred the appeal suit in A.S. No.22/2020 on the file of Principal District Judge, Villupuram. The first appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the counter claim. Aggrieved by this, the present Second appeal is preferred.

3. At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law have been framed.

(a) Whether the first appellate court was justified in allowing the first appeal, without deciding maintainability of first appeal, when the first appellant have filed counter claim for Mandatory injunction to direct the respondent to hand over the original title documents relating to the suit properties and decree was passed in his favour, and the respondent allowed the said decree attain as final and no separate appeal was filed against the counterclaim decree as mandated under Order XX, Rule 19(2) of CPC?

(b) Whether the first appellate court was justified in allowing the appeal, deciding that Specific Relief Amendment Act, 2017 has retrospective effect, without considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & another Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 712, deciding as follows:-

“Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 10 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act is prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force”.

(c) Whether the first appellate court was justified in deciding that the appellant has proved his ready and willingness, when as per recitals of Ex.A.1 sale agreement dated 01.03.2012 the period of completion of contract was fixed to one year, and the period was expired on 28.02.2013, but the respondent has issued suit notice on 09.04.2013, long after the said period and it itself is sufficient to decide that the respondent not proved his ready and willingness?”

4. Mr. S. Natarajan, the learned counsel for the appellants / defendants submits that the 1^st defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.03.2013 from the plaintiff as loan. At that time, the plaintiff obtained signed blank papers from the 1^st defendant and the same is fabricated as suit agreement. The 1^st defendant never entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.2,95,000/- and received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as advance and agreed to receive the balance of Rs.45,000/- within a period of one year as alleged by the plaintiff. The 1^st defendant never intended to sell his property to the plaintiff. The furth