Proof of continuous readiness and willingness is essential for specific performance; failure to demonstrate such readiness undermines entitlement to equitable relief.

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. The defendants in O.S.No.110 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, are the appellants herein and the plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

4. The brief fact of the plaintiff’s case is as follows :-

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- and executed a sale agreement dated 29.09.2015, receiving a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as advance. It was agreed between the parties that the sale transaction shall be completed within a period of four months. Though a time limit of four months was stipulated, time was not the essence of contract. The defendants also undertook to clear the mortgage debts due to Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., out of the advance amount paid by the plaintiff and thereafter, agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property, free from all encumbrances. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendants. (ii) On 23.01.2016, the plaintiff issued a legal notice expressing his readiness to pay the balance sale consideration. Though the defendants received the said legal notice on 25.01.2016, they neither sent any reply nor complied with the demand. The plaintiff’s power of attorney holder also insisted the defendants to clear their debts due to Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., and to execute the sale deed. However, the defendants deliberately delayed the execution of the sale deed. Hence, the suit came to be filed.

5. The defendants, in his written statement, denied the agreement of sale:

(i) It is the contention of the defendants that first defendant is running a famous bed mart in Villupuram Town and that the property is a multi-storeyed building. As their creditors insisted on payment of the borrowed amount, the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the plaintiff insisted upon the execution of a sale agreement as security for the said loan and accordingly, the alleged agreement of sale was executed.

(ii) It is further contended by the defendants that there was no agreement for sale, and that the document was executed only in connection with the loan transaction. Even after issuance of the legal notice, the defendants met the plaintiff and the plaintiff assured them that he would not take any action based on the legal notice. Believing his words, the defendants did not send any reply to the legal notice. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get specific performance as prayed for?

2. Whether the sale agreement executed for security for loan as alleged by the defendants ?

3. To what other relief.?

7. On the side of the plaintiff, the Power of Attorney of the plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1, and one Noormohamed, one of the attesting witness in the sale agreement was examined as P.W.2. and four documents were marked a E