A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations; failure to do so results in denial of relief.

JUDGMENT :

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.108 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, is the appellant herein.

2. O.S.No.108 of 2010 had been filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale by the defendant, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,01,15,000/-, failing which the plaintiff prayed that the Court should execute a sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule properties.

3. While the appeal was pending before this Court, the appellant filed C.M.P.(MD)No.6174 of 2025 seeking to amend the relief to include an alternative prayer to direct refund of advance sale consideration of Rs.31,75,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the agreement till the date of realisation. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed by this Court on 22.04.2025.

4. There were two items of suit schedule properties, which were adjacent to each other and contiguous. The first item was vacant land in S.No.60/1B at Sivagiripatti Village, abutting the Palani National Highway in Dindigul District, measuring a total extent of 1 Acre and 3 Cents, out of which, an extent of land in the north-western corner, measuring 3,533½ sq. ft., had already been sold. The second item of the suit property was adjacent land in S.No.60/1A, measuring a total extent of 4 Acres and 68 Cents.

5. The suit came up for consideration before the Additional District Court, Dindigul, and by judgment dated 22.01.2014, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the suit with costs, necessitating the plaintiff to file the present appeal.

6. Since the plaintiff had not sought the alternative relief of repayment of the advance amount paid, C.M.P.(MD)No.6174 of 2025 was filed before this Court seeking inclusion of such an alternative relief, and as stated above, the same was allowed by this Court on 22.04.2025.

O.S.No.108 of 2010 [Additional District Court, Dindigul]:-

7. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant had initially entered into an understanding to convey the suit properties for a total consideration of Rs.1,24,00,000/-. Pursuant thereto, they executed a written agreement of sale on 18.09.2006, under which the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.95,00,000/-. The defendant had received an advance of Rs.5,00,000/-, and for the balance sale consideration of Rs.29,00,000/-, the plaintiff had executed a promissory note in favour of the defendant. It was agreed that the sale should be completed within six months from the date of the said agreement. The defendant's son, Karthikeyan, signed the agreement as one of the attesting witnesses.

7.1. Subsequently, the period of the agreement was extended up to 30.04.2007. It was further stated that the defendant had received a total sum of Rs.21,75,000/- in various instalments before the said date. The plaintiff claimed that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and to purchase the property, but that certain encumbrances existed which the defendant had to clear before execution of the sale deed.

7.2. The plaintiff caused a publication to be made in the Daily Thanthi newspaper on 15.07.2007, and again in Dinamalar on 16.07.2007, asserting his rights over the suit properties. Thereafter, he came to know that one Ammaiyappan, a creditor, had earlier caused a publication on 15.10.2006 claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- against the defendant. Subsequently, the daughters and son of the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff on 21.07.2007, claiming rights over the properties, to which the plaintiff issued a reply on 12.08.2007.

7.3. Thereafter, the plaintiff approach