The court held that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness in specific performance claims, and doubts regarding the authenticity of an agreement can lead to dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2015 passed in A.S.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur, in confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.228 of2001, dated 09.11.2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur.

2. The appellant and the second and third respondents are the defendants in the main suit and the plaintiff who is the first respondent herein has filed the main suit for the relief of specific performance of contract and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, they have preferred First Appeal in A.S.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur and the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the first defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as referred to in the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

(a) The suit properties belong to the first defendant who purchased the same through sale deed, dated 18.06.1998 and the first defendant approached the plaintiff to sell the suit property for her family expenses and the plaintiff also agreed to purchase the property, for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- and entered into sale agreement on 30.08.1999 and on the date of agreement itself, a sum of Rs.9,000/- was paid as advance and the balance amount of Rs.1,000/-was to be paid within two months from the date of agreement.

(b) The plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the first defendant is evading from executing the sale deed. Already, the first defendant also executed another sale agreement dated 30.08.1998 in respect of the entire property for a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs and received advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/-.

(c) The first defendant did not execute the sale deed in respect of the property also. The plaintiff issued notice dated 25.08.2001 calling upon the first defendant to perform his part of the contract, but the first defendant failed to comply with the agreement and therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of the contract.

5. Brief averments of the written statement filed by the first defendant in the suit, are as follows:

(a) The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the plaintiff. The description of the property is not correct. The suit property does not belong to the first defendant and the suit filed by the plaintiff is not for the property standing in the name of the first defendant and the suit has been filed for the properties of third parties and the suit agreement is not in respect of the property standing in the name of the first defendant.

(b) The first defendant, on 28.01.2009, executed a gift deed in favour of the third defendant and the said gift deed was accepted by the second defendant. The property gifted to the third defendant under the gift deed, is not the subject matter of the property whereby the third defendant is unnecessary party to the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(c) In fact, the suit agreement is not intended for sale