A party seeking specific performance must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, supported by credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

M. Jothiraman, J.

Unsuccessful defendant has preferred this appeal suit. The Suit is filed for Specific Performance and the suit is decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court.

2. Brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

2.1. The suit schedule property belongs to the defendant. He agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs.7,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as advance from the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to receive balance of Rs.50,000/- within 6 months and to execute the sale agreement, as per the agreement of sale dated 20.12.004, entered between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

2.2. The plaintiff has been asking the defendant from the beginning of February, 2005 to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- and to execute the sale deed at the expense of plaintiff, but the defendant has been evading to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 14.02.2005 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, he has not received the notice. Hence the Suit is for Specific Performance.

3. Brief case of the defendant is as follows:

3.1. The defendant specifically denied that he had received a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a sale agreement dated 20.12.2004. The said sale agreement dated 20.12.2004 is not true and the defendant did not execute the same. The defendant did not enter into any sale agreement with the plaintiff and as such, the sale agreement with the plaintiff is concocted one. The defendant is one of the members in the Chit company run by one Mani during the year 2003 and he had participated in the chit funds monthly meeting and taken the chit amount as the highest bidder for two lakhs. There was dispute with regard to the quantum of interest which leads to sending petitions to the police department by this defendant. Aggrieved by the act of the defendant, the said Mani joining hands with the plaintiff and fabricated the suit sale agreement dated 20.12.2004. The defendant did not receive any legal notice from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not at all deposited Rs.50,000/- as stated in the plaintiff. The cause of action as alleged in the plaint is not true. The value of the suit property is Rs.25/- lakhs as per the guideline value of the Registrar Officer and with wrong intention, ulterior motive and to grab the property, the plaintiff along with Mani had intended to create the sale agreement and filed the vexatious suit with false and untenable grounds. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Suit.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the defendant's denial of having executed the Sale Agreement dated 20.12.2004 is true?

(ii) Whether the defendant is legally bound to execute the sale deed upon receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- ?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the sale deed executed and registered through intervention of the Court in the event of the defendant's refusal?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be put in possession of the suit property?

(v) To that reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff Tr.Ponnusamy, examined himself as PW1 and one Periyasamy as PW2 and documents Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2.

Finding of the Trial Court:

6.