A plaintiff's substantial advance payment and evidence of willingness to complete a contract can support a claim for specific performance, despite allegations of coercion against the defendant.

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.71 of 2021, dated 09.11.2021 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.110 of 2013, dated 16.10.2020, on the file of the Sub Court, Ambasamudram.

2.The appellant is the defendant. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.110 of 2013, on the file of the Sub Court, Ambasamudram, claiming the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 05.12.2012 or in alternative, to refund the advance amount with interest and costs.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking/status before the trial Court.

4.The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows :

a) The suit property originally belonged to one Simson Nadar, father of the defendant. The said Simson Nadar executed a registered settlement deed, dated 31.10.2012 settling the suit property in favour of his son/defendant and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as its absolute owner.

b) The defendant offered to sell the suit property to the plaintiff, who in turn agreed to purchase the same and both the parties entered into a sale agreement, dated 05.12.2012, whereunder, they have fixed the sale price at Rs.5,00,000/- and the period of performance as one year. The plaintiff paid an advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the same came to be received by the defendant on the date of agreement itself.

c) The defendant's brother-in-law Koil Pitchai and his close friend Balraj attested the sale agreement and also one Asir Selvaraj, S/o.Koil Arputhamani and Jeyaraj, S/o.Koil Chellamani were present and witnessed the execution of the said sale agreement.

d) The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to pay the balance sale price and to get the sale deed executed and registered. The plaintiff during August 2013, demanded the defendant to receive the balance sale price of Rs.1,00,000/- and to execute the sale deed, but the defendant replied that he was searching for a house for rent and asked the plaintiff to wait for some time, he would vacate the suit property and register a sale deed within December 2013. But, the defendant has not taken any steps to vacate the house as agreed by him. Hence, the plaintiff sent a legal notice, dated 29.11.2013 to the defendant and the same was received on 30.11.2013. The defendant sent a reply notice on 02.12.2013 with false and untenable averments.

e) The defendant deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- in Pandiyan Grama Bank, Kadayam on 05.12.2013. Since the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 05.12.2012.

5. The defence of the defendant, in short, is as follows :

a) The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit property originally belonged to the defendant's father and he settled the same in favour of the defendant through an unregistered settlement deed, dated 22.02.2009. Thereafter, the property tax assessment, water tax and electricity service connection were changed to the defendant's name in 2009 itself. The defendant renovated the house and conducted a house warming function on 29.10.2010 and the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

b) The defendant was running a chit fund business in Mettur Village and the plaintiff and other villagers had subscribed chits. Since the defendant suffered loss, the plaintiff and other villagers lodged a complaint against the defendant before the Economic offence Wing, Tirunelveli. At that time, the plaintiff had obtained the settlement deed dated 31.10.2012 and the sale agreement dated 05.12.2012 by coercion, towards the liability in chit fund transactions.

c) The defendant had no intention at any point of time to sell the suit pr