The court affirmed that an endorsement extending the time for executing a sale agreement is valid, and that delays caused by a partition suit do not bar specific performance when the plaintiff demonstrates continuous readiness and willingness.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. 

Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur, in O.S.No.1 of 2006, dated 13.10.2017, granting specific performance, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendants in the suit.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3.The following are the brief facts of the case : The defendants agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.25,50,001/- and accordingly, a sale agreement came to be executed between the plaintiff and the defendants on 03.11.1999 (Ex.A1). On the date of agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5,50,001/- as advance. It was agreed between the parties that the balance sale consideration will be paid within a period of six months from the date of sale agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that time was not the essence of the contract. Pursuant to the said agreement, possession was also delivered by the defendants to the plaintiff on the date of agreement itself. After the parties entered into the sale agreement, the elder brother of the defendants 1 and 7 filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.17 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur, not only in respect of the properties covered under the sale agreement, but also other properties. Admitting the filing of the suit by their brother, an endorsement was made by all the defendants on 10.10.2000 (Ex.A2) extending the period for execution of sale deed for a further period of six months or till the said suit for partition is finally disposed by way of settlement out of Court. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that all the defendants have also signed in the above endorsement (Ex.A2) made on the backside of the original sale agreement, on 10.10.2000. Thereafter, whenever the plaintiff approached the defendants 1 to 7 and enquired about the stage of the suit filed by their brother in O.S.No.17 of 2000, the defendants 1 and 7 stated that they are trying to amicably settle the matter among themselves and made the plaintiff believe their version, as possession was already handed over to him. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration and perform his part of the contract. Even during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 27.12.2004 (Ex.A3) expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and calling upon the defendants 1 and 7 to execute the sale deed. However, the same has not been replied by the defendants 1 and 7. Later, the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2000 came to be dismissed for default on 15.11.2005. The plaintiff, having reasons to believe connivance between the defendants 1 and 7 and their brother in filing the suit for partition, sent another legal notice to all the defendants on 05.12.2005 (Ex.A5). Despite receiving the same, no reply was sent by the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance to enforce the sale agreement dated 03.11.1999.

4.It is the contention of the plaintiff that, in the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 7 on 06.06.2005 in O.S.No.17 of 2000 filed by their brother for partition, they have categorically admitted about the execution of the sale agreement wi