If a plaintiff fails to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract, relief for specific performance can be denied despite filing within the limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry, in O.S. No. 73 of 2007.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 18.08.2004. The trial Court declined to grant the relief. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred to according to their rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the plaintiff’s case: The first defendant (since deceased) was the owner of the suit property. On 18.08.2004, the plaintiff entered into a registered agreement of sale with the first defendant, in which the re-survey number and extent were described as 110/3 and 2240 sq. ft. respectively. On the same date, the earlier agreement of sale dated 19.11.2001 executed by the first defendant in favour of one S. Ravi was cancelled.

4. According to the plaintiff, the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.5,30,000/-, of which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as advance. The agreement stipulated a period of three months from the date of execution for completion of the sale on payment of the balance consideration. It further provided that, in the event of failure on the part of the defendant to execute the sale deed after receipt of the balance amount, the plaintiff would be entitled to deposit the balance sale consideration before Court and secure execution of the sale deed through Court under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act . Significantly, the agreement contains no recital stipulating the consequence or course open to the first defendant in the event of the plaintiff’s failure to complete the sale by payment of the balance sale consideration.

5. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant failed to hand over the original title deeds as agreed and that the documents were delivered only in June 2006, after considerable delay. On examining the documents, the plaintiff claims to have discovered that the re-survey number mentioned in the agreement as 110/3 was incorrect and that the correct re-survey number was 110/10B/1B. Thereafter, from January 2007 onwards, the plaintiff requested the defendant to rectify the said defect. Although the defendant allegedly promised to do so, he neither rectified the error nor came forward to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 10.07.2007 calling upon the defendant to rectify the re-survey number and execute the sale deed. In reply, according to the plaintiff, false allegations were made. The plaintiff claims that he was at all times ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that, owing to the defendant’s failure to comply, the suit came to be instituted.

6. Brief facts of the defendants’ case: The defendants contend that from the date of the agreement the plaintiff never evinced any intention to complete the sale by paying the balance sale consideration and, consequently, forfeited not only his right to seek specific performance but also the advance amount. They assert that the re-survey number mentioned in the agreement is correct and is duly reflected in the encumbrance certificate, and that the plea of an incorrect survey number was raised only to create confusion. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has miserably failed to perform his part of the contract and is therefore not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance.

7. The trial Court, upon consideration of the issues and evidence, declined the r