Specific performance can be granted despite delays if the plaintiff shows readiness and mitigates circumstances affecting performance, indicating that time is not always the essence of the contract.

Judgment :

C.V.Karthikeyan J.

The first and second defendants and the legal representatives of the third defendant have filed the present appeal suit challenging the judgment dated 12.09.2011, in O.S.No.78 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal.

2.The suit in O.S.No.78 of 2009 had been filed by the respondent T.K.Kandhaswamy seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement dated 10.06.2006 and directing the defendants to execute a registered sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.55,06,300/- in his favour with respect to the suit property and in default, for the Court to execute the sale deed in his favour. The suit was decreed by judgment dated 12.09.2011 necessitating filing of the present appeal.

3.Pending appeal, the first and second appellants died and their legal representatives were impleaded as 6^th to 10^th appellants. The sole respondent T.K.Kandhaswamy also died and his legal representatives were impleaded as 2^nd to 4^th respondents. The third respondent also died and her legal representative was impleaded as 6^th respondent.

4.During the pendency of the appeal, the 5^th respondent T.Marappan was impleaded by an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.63 of 2015, by an order dated 06.01.2015. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had however stated that such impleadment was without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the appeal to agitate all questions of law that may be open to them. Further, it was also directed that the High Court should not permit the nature and character of the original pleadings to be altered in any manner.

5.O.S.No.78 of 2009 - Principal District Court, Namakkal.The plaintiff T.K.Kandhaswamy stated that the defendants Ponnammal, Chinnammal and Kannammal who are the daughters of late Vellappa Gounder had entered into an agreement of sale with him on 10.06.2006 with respect to the suit properties for a total consideration of Rs.20,90,000/- per acre. The total area of the property agreed to be conveyed was 4.07 acres. It had been further contended that an advance sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- had been paid on the date of agreement. The time for execution was fixed before the last day of Ippasi month, namely, on or before 16.11.2006. It was further contended that possession had been handed over on the date of agreement itself. It was further contended that the properties had to be measured and the sale deed would be executed in favour of the plaintiff after producing all original and ancient documents. It had been further contended that a further advance of Rs.18,00,000/- had been paid and this was endorsed on the back side of the sale agreement itself. It was therefore contended that the defendants have totally received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards the sale consideration as advance.

6.It was further contended that the defendants executed a General Power of Attorney on 23.06.2006 and it was stipulated that this Power of Attorney would be valid till the agreement is performed. The Power of Attorney was also notarised. The defendants however issued a notice on 14.04.2007 that they had cancelled the said Power of Attorney. The plaintiff contended that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs 55,06,30