A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations, and mere existence of an agreement without adequate proof does not suffice for enforcement.

JUDGMENT :

P.DHANABAL, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S.No.24 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal dated 30.06.2011. In fact, before the trial court, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff has preferred the Appeal Suit before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court reversed the Judgment of the trial court and Decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment, the defendants 2 and 3 have preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendants, as referred before the trial court.

3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

Originally the suit property belonged to one Varadaraju Chettiar and the said Varadaraju Chettiar has entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the property for a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs and a sum of Rs.1 Lakh was paid towards advance and the remaining amount has to be paid within 55 months, to that effect, the sale agreement dated 02.11.1998 was entered into between the plaintiff and the said Varadaraju Chettiar. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance of sale price and to get the sale deed in his favour, but the said Varadaraju Chettiar was evading from executing sale deed. In the meantime, the said Varadaraju Chettiar died intestate leaving behind his wife, children, namely, defendants 1 to 6. Since the defendants are evading from executing the sale deed, as per the agreement, the plaintiff issued notice dated 17.05.2003 and the defendants 1 to 3 received the said notice, the defendants 4 to 6 managed to return the same. Even after the receipt of notice, the defendants failed to perform their part of contract, therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit.

4. The brief averments of the Written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:-

The suit is not maintainable either in Law or on facts. The relationship between the parties is correct. The averments made in the plaint that the property belonged to Varadaraju Chettiar and he agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and received the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance and executed agreement dated 02.11.1998 are all false. In fact, the said property belonged to father of Varadaraju Chettiar, namely Ramasamy Chettiar and the said agreement is forged one. The properties are not under the possession and enjoyment of the defendants. The defendants are not liable to execute any sale deed and the other legal heirs of Varadaraju Chettiar have not been impleaded as parties to the suit. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no cause of action for the suit and daughters of 2 and 3 defendants filed the suit before the District Court, Namakkal in O.S.No.44 of 2004 and the same is pending. These defendants are not parties to the agreement, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the above said pleadings and after hearing both sides, the trial court has framed the following issues for trial:-

“1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties?

2. Whether the agreement dated 02.11.1998 is true?

3. Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

6. To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?”

Before the trial court on the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and