A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar J.

1. Challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, decreeing the suit for specific performance, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and executed a registered agreement of sale on 08.03.2019 after receiving Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. It was agreed between the parties that the sale shall be completed within a period of 11 months, i.e. on or before 07.02.2020. The defendant also agreed to vacate the tenants from the suit premises. As the defendant could not vacate the tenants within the stipulated in time, he sought extension of time to perform his part of contract. Though the plaintiff suggested extension of time, the defendant requested a further advance of Rs.3,20,000/-. Later, the defendant came with a proposal that the earlier agreement be cancelled and a fresh agreement be executed. Accordingly, the earlier agreement dated 08.03.2019 was cancelled on 01.06.2020 and a fresh agreement of sale in respect of the suit property was entered into, wherein the defendant agreed to complete the sale within a period of 11 months. Though the plaintiff called upon the defendant on several occasions to execute the sale deed, the defendant evaded performance. Hence, a legal notice was issued on 22.04.2021, and the defendant sent a reply notice dated 28.04.2021 containing false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. It is the contention of the defendant in the written statement that he never intended to sell the property at any point of time. The plaintiff and the defendant belong to the same village and have known to each other for more than 50 years. The plaintiff is a financier. The defendant states that he received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as a loan from the plaintiff at the rate of interest at 12% per annum. According to the defendant, the plaintiff obtained two documents by misrepresenting that they were mortgage deeds. Therefore, it is the case of the defendant that he never executed any sale agreement and that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are only security documents relating to the loan transaction.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues :-

I) Whether the sale agreement dated 08.03.2019 is true and valid?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance ?

3) Whether the sale agreement is intended for money transactions?

4) To what relief ?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and nine documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and three documents were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that though the plaintiff has projected sale agreements (Exs.A1 & A3), the very nature of the suit agreement dated 01.06.2010 itself probabilises the defence theory that the transaction was, in substance, only a loan transaction. According to the appellant, the agreement came to be executed only due to misrepresentation. Even assuming that the suit agreement is a sale agreement, the plaintiff/respondent has failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The very contents of both the agreements, according to the appellant, clearly probabilise the defence theory, which the Trial Court failed to appreciate properly. It is also contended that only certain deposits made in the year 2003 have been produced, whereas no evidence has been placed to show that, in the years 2019 and 2020, the petitioner had the financial capacity to mobilise the balance sale consideration. Hence, readiness and willingness cannot be inferred in this case merely on the basis of the registered agreement and the issuan