J U D G M E N T

This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 11.03.2011 made in O.S.No.206 of 2008.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants. The appellant had filed a suit in O.S.No.206 of 2008, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Madurai against the respondents for specific performance. The said suit was dismissed. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal before this Court.

3. According to the case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, the suit properties items 1 to 3 are situated at Thanakkankulam and Thirupparankundram Village, Madurai South Taluk. The first item of the property was purchased by the first defendant through a registered sale deed, dated 18.05.1995 from one Ponnuthai and the second item was purchased by the first defendant from one Gurusamy and the 3rd item was purchased by the husband of the first defendant by a registered sale deed, dated 18.05.1995. After the death of the first defendant's husband, the defendants 1 to 3 have succeeded to the estate of the deceased. The defendants offered to sell the first item of the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and the second and third items of the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. On 04.05.2006, two sale agreements were entered into for the first item and the item Nos.2 & 3 and an advance of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.6,50,000/- was paid and the same was registered. The sale transaction has agreed to be completed within one year from 04.05.2006. The plaintiff received a Lawyer notice stating that the schedule mentioned property has been attached to recover the debt repayable by the husband of the first defendant. On a perusal of the records from the office of the Sub-Registrar, a suit has been filed before the III Additional Subordinate Court for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/-. The plaintiff has compelled the defendants to discharge the Court attachment and to produce the original records. The defendants stated that it was in the State Bank of India, Madurai as security. The defendants did not take any action to clear the subsisting encumbrance. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In the meanwhile, the third item of the property was brought for sale by Punjab National Bank under SARFAESI Act and an Appeal No.161/2008 was filed and the same is pending. The defendants have not yet repaid the loan amount payable by them. In the above said circumstances, the plaintiff seeks for a decree and judgment for a specific performance and for costs.

4. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement stating that the plaintiff approached the defendants and offered to purchase the suit properties 2 and 3 worth about Rs.12,00,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was received and a promise was made to pay the remaining sale consideration within a year. The defendants were ready to register the sale deed and asked the plaintiff several times to register the sale deed within November 2006. The plaintiff paid further sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- on several occasions and totally a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff in this regard. The plaintiff alone dragging on the defendants for a long time and the agreements got expired on 04.05.2007 and so, the plaintiff cannot claim any right upon the sale agreement. The plaintiff has not mentioned any reason for his delay in filing the suit. The plaintiff has not come with clean hands. The plaintiff has valued the properties at a less market rate and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues for consideration:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract, dated 04.05.2006 between the plaintiff and the defendants?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to p