A sale agreement remains enforceable if the plaintiff demonstrates readiness to perform and if the defendant fails to substantiate claims of fraud or lack of authority.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The above Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2025 passed in A.S. No.4 of 2023, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Perambalur, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 16.08.2021 passed in O.S. No.90 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Perambalur.

2. The 1^st respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance of sale agreement. The plaintiff submits that the 2^nd defendant is the son of the 1^st defendant and the defendants 3 and 4 are the son and daughter of the 2^nd defendant and that the 2^nd defendant has got 2 other sons namely, Ramar and Perumal. The plaintiff further submits that the defendants 1 and 2 and the 2^nd defendant's brother, namely Perumal entered into a Sale agreement dated 13.02.2007 agreeing to sell the 'A' Schedule suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,75,000/- i.e., Rs.12,500/- per cent and after receiving an advance amount of Rs.50,000/-, 3 months time was fixed to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff further submits that on 01.03.2007, the 2^nd defendant received a sum of Rs.25,000/- from plaintiff and on 12.03.2007 received Rs.1,800/- after endorsing the receipt of the same in the sale agreement. The plaintiff further submits that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the defendants 1 and 2 and Perumal were evading the same by saying some reasons. The plaintiff further submits that in the mean time, the 1^st defendant’s elder son one Ramar filed a suit in O.S.No.133/2007 on the file of District Munsif Court, Perambalur for partition, and had also issued a legal notice to this plaintiff on 16.03.2007 for which a suitable reply was given by the plaintiff. The plaintiff further submits that the defendants 3 and 4 who are none other than the children of the 2^nd defendant issued a legal notice to this plaintiff upon the instigation of the 2^nd defendant, also for which the plaintiff had given a suitable reply. The plaintiff further submits that he also issued a legal notice to the defendants 1, 2 and to one Perumal for executing the sale deed and that after the receipt of the same the 1^st defendant made a family arrangement by executing 3 registered settlement deeds in favour of his three sons namely Ramar, Perumal and Raju. On 20.04.2007 the western Ac.0.23 cents was given to Ramar, middle Ac.0.21½ cents to 2^nd defendant and eastern Ac.0.21½ cents to Perumal. The plaintiff further submits that though the defendants 1 and 2 executed the sale agreement as if they have got 0.43 cents in Survey No. 130/8, but in the settlement deed, the 1^st defendant has given 21½ cents each for the 2^nd defendant and Perumal. The plaintiff further submits that even after the execution of the settlement deeds, he insisted the defendants 1 and 2 and Perumal to execute the sale deed and as per the sale agreement Perumal sold his share to the plaintiff on 04.05.2007 by calculating per cent for Rs.12,500/-. The plaintiff further submits that as per the sale agreement, the 2^nd defendant did not execute the sale deed with regard to his share, on the other hand he had executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, the 3^rd defendant on 07.05.2007 and the same will not bind the plaintiff. However, the 3^rd defendant has been added as a party in this suit. The plaintiff further submits that the property which has to be sold by the 2^nd defendant has been shown as B Schedule property and the 2^nd defendant is liable to execute the sale deed. The 5^th defendant has purchased the B schedule property from the 3^rd defendant and hence she has been impleaded in