The court affirmed that a party's denial of an agreement's execution precludes them from claiming non-performance when readiness to perform has been established, resulting in a right to specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.212 of 2012, on the file of the IV Additional District Court at Bhavani, aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.03.2018 had filed the present Appeal Suit.

2.Pending the appeal, the plaintiff / appellant died and his legal representatives had been brought on record.

3.O.S.No.212 of 2012 had been filed seeking a direction against the defendants 1, 2 and 3 to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- with respect to the suit property after receiving the balance sale consideration and on failure, for the Court to execute the sale deed and to put the plaintiff in lawful possession of the suit property or in the alternate to refund of the advance sale consideration together with interest. By judgment dated 27.03.2018, the relief of specific performance was denied and the alternate relief of payment of advance amount had been granted. Challenging that judgment, the Appeal Suit had been filed.O.S.No.212 of 2012 (IV Additional District Court, Bhavani):

4.In the plaint, it had been contended that the suit property consisting of vacant land of 13,200 sq.ft. (0.30 cents) at Pachampalayam Village, Bhavani Taluk, belonged to the 1^st defendant, V.Arumugam who had been allotted the same under a partition deed dated 26.02.1998. The 2^nd and 3^rd defendants are the sons of the 1^st defendant. The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants had offered to sell the said suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- to the plaintiff and an unregistered agreement of sale was executed on 24.09.2009 and an advance of Rs.6,00,000/- had been paid towards part sale consideration. The plaintiff had earlier paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance which had also been reduced into writing on 03.09.2009. Thereafter, a registered agreement of sale was entered into with the plaintiff and the 4^th and 5^th defendants on one part and the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants on the other part on 01.10.2009. The 4^th and 5^th defendants were added as necessary parties for proper adjudication of the case. The time stipulated for performance of the contract was one year under the unregistered agreement of sale. It was contended that possession had also been handed over to the plaintiff. It was also contended that the cart track running East to West ending with the Panchayat Road had not been formed and handed over to the Panchayat. In view of that particular fact, the sale deed had not been executed by the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants who delayed execution of the sale deed giving one reason or the other.

5.It was contended that a further advance was paid on 23.12.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and an endorsement was made on the agreement dated 24.09.2009. A further advance of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid on 23.03.2010 and this again was endorsed in the agreement of sale deed dated 24.09.2009. Thereafter, the 3^rd defendant had been hospitalized and the 1^st and 2^nd defendants stated that they would obtain his signature after he recovered from his illness. It was contended that the plaintiff had paid a total advance of Rs.9,50,000/- to the 1^st 2^nd and 3^rd defendants. It was further contended that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay balance sale consideration.

6.It was further contended that the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd defendants were attempting to alienate the suit property to third parties necessitating the plaintiff to issue a legal notice on 27.08.2012 calling upon them to perform their part of the agreement. The 1^st and 2^nd defendants had received the notices. T