A valid sale agreement can be enforced if the plaintiff demonstrates readiness to perform contractual obligations despite claims of coercion being unsubstantiated.

JUDGMENT :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

The defendants in O.S.No.112 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Palani have preferred the present first appeal challenging the decree for specific performance.

(A).Pleadings of the parties are as follows:

2.The plaintiff has contended that the defendants are husband and wife and the suit schedule properties absolutely belongs to the first defendant who has purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.2003. When the house of the first defendant in the suit schedule properties was under construction, the defendants have received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 23.11.2012 and permitted the plaintiff to reside in the suit schedule property from 10.02.2014 for a period of 3 years without rent and in lieu of interest.

3.It is further contended that on 03.06.2015, the plaintiff and the first defendant had entered into a registered sale agreement wherein it was agreed that the total sale consideration would be Rs.30,00,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.17,00,000/- was paid on the date of the sale agreement. The defendants have agreed to execute a sale deed within a period of two years after receiving a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-. It was further agreed that the plaintiff has to clear the loan amount of Rs.11,00,000/- which the defendant has borrowed from the State Bank of India, Palani Branch.

4.The plaintiff had further contended that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 15.12.2015 and an endorsement was made in the sale agreement. Therefore, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-, already Rs.22,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed registered, the defendant was evading. The plaintiff has issued a notice on 15.06.2016 for which a reply was sent by the first defendant on 03.06.2015 wherein it was contended that the sale agreement was executed only as security for the loan amount borrowed from the plaintiff.

5.It is further contended in the plaint that the first defendant is working as a Personal Assistant to the District Collector of Madurai. Therefore, the plaintiff has lodged a complaint on 20.06.2016 before the District Collector, Madurai. The District Revenue Officer has conducted an enquiry on 30.06.2016 in which the first defendant has appeared and agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of one month. Since the first defendant has not executed the sale deed, the plaintiff has lodged a complaint to the District Revenue Office, Madurai on 01.08.2016.

6.Based upon the said complaint, the District Collector, Madurai had addressed a communication to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul on 03.08.2016 to initiate the criminal proceedings as against the first defendant. It is further contended in the plaint that the plaintiff is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and he had enclosed a lodgment schedule to the said effect along with the plaint.

7.Based upon the above said averments, the plaintiff has sought for a decree for specific performance, a receipt of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff. He had also prayed for alternative relief of refund of the advance amount of Rs.22,00,000/- along with 12% interest.

8.The first defendant had filed a written statement admitting the execution of the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. However, he had contended that the suit is bad for mis-joinder o