The court held that the plaintiff established readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the alleged cancellation via Whatsapp message lacked proper authentication, supporting the enforceability of the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

1. The defendants in a suit for specific performance have preferred the present appeal challenging the decree for specific performance.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property. They entered into a sale agreement on 22.08.2016 to alienate the property in favour of the plaintiff. The total sale consideration is Rs.1,01,25,000/-. Rs.5,00,000/- was paid in cash as advance. A cheque for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- was paid in favour of the defendants for remitting the loan from the State Bank of India. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs.74,25,000/- was to be paid within a period of three months. In the meantime, the property has to be measured with the help of a Government Surveyor in the presence of the plaintiff and the defendants should have redeemed the property.

3.The plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 29.05.2017 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. The defendants had sent a reply on 06.06.2017 contending that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract due to lack of funds arising out of demonetization. In the reply notice, it was further pointed out that the plaintiff had refused to perform his part of the contract on the ground that the property is an unapproved land. It was further pointed out in the reply notice that the plaintiff has sent a Whatsapp message to the defendants' son on 21.11.2016 intimating that he is not willing to proceed with the agreement and requesting for refund of the advance amount. In the reply notice, the defendants requested the plaintiff to get refund of the advance amount in instalments.

4.The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance on 17.07.2017 contending that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the defendants alone had delayed the execution of the sale deed citing demonetization.

5.The defendants had filed a written statement admitting the execution of the sale agreement and the receipt of Rs.27,00,000/-. The primary contention of the defendants was that on 21.11.2016, the plaintiff has sent a Whatsapp message to the defendants' son indicating his disinclination to purchase the property and for refund of the advance amount. Therefore, it should be deemed that the sale agreement got cancelled on 21.11.2016. It was further contended in the written statement since the plaintiff demanded interest for the advance amount, there was some dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants had further contended that on 03.05.2012, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued a Government Order to the effect that unless the sale agreement is registered, such a document would not be valid. Therefore, the present suit for specific performance is not legally sustainable.

6.The plaintiff had filed a reply statement to the effect that on 21.11.2016, when the plaintiff and his relative were discussing the issue in the defendants' house, the defendants' son might have used the mobile phone of the plaintiff for sending such a Whatsapp message. Therefore, such a message is a fraudulent one. In fact, no reply was sent by the defendants to the said Whatsapp message.

7.A rejoinder was filed by the defendants disputing the allegation in the reply statement.

8.On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had examined himself as PW1 and one Muthanna was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant got himself examin