JUDGEMENT

This second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. A sale agreement dated 23.11.1994 was executed by one Thiru.Manian and his wife Ambigai Ammal to sell the property comprised in S.F No.371/2 measuring 2 acres and 90 cents in Gundur Village, Trichirappalli Taluk in favour of the appellant for a consideration of Rs.92,800/-. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.29,000/- as advance and the balance consideration of Rs.63,800/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The period fixed for completion of the transaction was four months from the date of agreement.

2.The appellant issued legal notice dated 08.03.1995 alleging that Manian and his wife had entered into the agreement dated 23.11.1994 without making any disclosure about the pendency of O.S.No.638 of 1991 filed by one Chinnammal and Paranthaman in respect of the suit property against them. He called upon them to satisfy him about their title to the property forthwith ; on hearing the same from them, he would be ready and willing to purchase. A reply dated 16.03.1995 was issued in which Manian and his wife reiterated their willingness to conclude the agreement on receipt of the balance sale price. They rejected the doubts raised by the appellant as regards their title over the property.

3.The appellant instituted O.S No.644 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Trichirappalli (transferred and re-numbered as O.S No.1757 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli) on 08.10.1996 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 23.11.1994. During the pendency of the suit, both the executants passed away and their legal heirs came on record. Written statement was filed controverting the plaint averments. The readiness and willingness of the plaintiff was questioned.

4.Based on the divergent pleadings, the trial court framed as many as six issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. The 4th defendant examined herself as DW.1 and marked the certified copies of the judgment and decree made in O.S No.638 of 1991 as Exs.B1 and B2. After consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court by judgment and decree dated 10.10.2007 directed the defendants to execute a sale deed with regard to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on his depositing the balance sale consideration with 9% interest from the date of the sale agreement to the date of deposit on or before 10.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed A.S No.70 of 2008 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.07.2009 reversed the decision of the trial court and allowed the appeal. Questioning the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to frame the substantial questions of law and admit the appeal and take it up for disposal later. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and pressed for dismissal of the second appeal.

6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record. The original defendants had agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the appellant vide Ex.A1 dated 23.11.1994. Since they did not come forward to execute the sale deed, O.S No.644 of 1996 was filed before Sub Court, Trichirappalli. The first appellate court concluded that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirement set out in Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The only question that falls for consideration is whether the said conclusion of the first appellate court is correct.

7.Before amendment, Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was as follows :

“Personal bars to relief.-Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in fa