The court established that a plaintiff's capacity to pay for specific performance need not involve carrying cash; readiness and willingness can be demonstrated through evidence of financial capability and prior actions.

JUDGMENT :

J.Nisha Banu J.

The present Appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC as against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2024, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet in OS. No. 241/2006, dismissing the suit for specific performance, filed by the Plaintiff.

2. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant in brief contended that, after fixing the sale consideration for sale of the suit schedule property owned by the 1st defendant in the suit i.e.. Kuppammal (since deceased), at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per cent and after receiving an advance of Rs. 13,50,000/- (on various dates), the 1st defendant. Kuppammal, did not come forward for execution of the Sale Deed, even though the Appellant/ Plaintiff was all along ready and willing. The same therefore, necessitated filing of the suit for specific performance.

3. It is the contention of the Appellant/Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed and evaded execution of the same, as the 1st defendant who undertook to produce the patta in her name, evidencing the physical availability of the land to the extent of 69 cents, did not produce the patta. The 1st defendant on various occasions, when the plaintiff approached, stated that she was busy with the marriage of her granddaughter (daughter of the 4th Defendant in suit, Mr. Radhakrishnan, the DW1) and after completion of the same, she will execute the Sale Deed.

4. The Learned Senior Counsel for Appellant pointing out Exhibit Al, which is a sale deed dated 05.08.1948 registered on the files of the SRO Pallavaram in Document No. 1426/1948, contended that the said document, which is the only parent title document available before the purchase of the property by the 1st defendant, does not have the boundaries in measurement. Moreover, the said document has got the extent mentioned in Kani with reference of Paimash numbers. Similar is also Exhibit A2, which is the Sale deed by which the 1st Defendant purchased the property in the year 1950. Since thereafter, many surveys were conducted by the revenue department and the paimash numbers were converted into survey numbers and subsequently to re-survey numbers and then totown survey numbers.

5. During the surveys conducted by the revenue department and the Paimash numbers have been converted into survey numbers and Kani has been converted to acres, cents, sq. mtrs and sq. feet. The said surveys resulted not only in varying the extent of the land holding, but also the boundaries resulting in specific length and breadth. Between 1979 and 1987, under the Updating of the Registry (UDR) scheme, land ownership records and the actual extent of land which was available were surveyed, corrected and updated. Though, there was a reference of patta in relation to the paimash number found in exhibit A2, even the said patta was not shown or produced by the 1st defendant or the other defendants either to the plaintiff or before the Trial Court. The 1st defendant undertook to obtain and produce the patta with reference to the actual extent of land available evidencing the physical availability of the land, after the marriage of her granddaughter, which was not done.

6. The 2nd defendant (deceased) who is the husband of the 1st Defendant and the 4th defendant, who were present at the time of execution of the Exhibit A6 and receiving of the advance amounts claimed that the 1st defendant ow