The principle of specific performance requires the plaintiff to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, crucial for entitlement to relief.

JUDGMENT

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The defendants 4 to 14, 16 to 18, and 20 in O.S.No.20 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, are the appellants herein. They filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.20 of 2007 by the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. The 15^th and 19^th defendants have been impleaded as the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in the appeal; however, it is contended that they have no adverse interest against the appellants.

2. O.S.No.20 of 2007 had been filed by the 1^st respondent seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 03.02.2007 entered into between him and the defendants or, in the alternative, for a direction to refund the advance amount paid under the said agreement along with interest. The learned I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, decreed the suit, directing specific performance of the agreement.

3. It must also be mentioned that O.S.No.20 of 2007 had originally been filed against four defendants, all of whom were brothers. During the pendency of the suit, the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd defendants died, and their legal representatives were brought on record. The 4^th defendant is the 1^st appellant herein.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, a Memo dated 15.10.2025 was filed on behalf of the 1^st appellant stating that he had entered into a compromise with the 1^st respondent and had executed a registered sale deed dated 11.09.2025 in favour of the 1^st respondent in respect of his undivided 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties. He had also executed a registered sale deed dated 26.09.2025 in favour of the 1^st respondent regarding his individual properties. By the said Memo, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants sought to withdraw the appeal insofar as the 1^st appellant is concerned.

5. This Court recorded the Memo on 15.10.2025. In view of the categorical statement made therein, which had also been signed by the 1^st appellant, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn insofar as the 1^st appellant alone is concerned.

The remaining appellants, however, continued to prosecute the appeal.

O.S.No.20 of 2007 [I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli]:-

6. In the plaint, the plaintiff, P.Rajendra Chorida, contended that the suit schedule properties, being a vast extent of vacant land situated at Valliyoor in Tirunelveli District, were jointly owned by the defendants, namely T.Perumal Nadar, T.Rathinamani Nadar, T.Natarajan, and T.Hariramakrishnan. It was further stated that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendants on 03.02.2007 to purchase the said lands for a total sale consideration of Rs.49,75,000/-, and that he had paid a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- as advance. In the plaint, it had been stated that the parties had agreed to complete the sale on or before 02.04.2007.

6.1. The plaintiff pleaded that he had asked for production of the original title deeds, which the defendants had agreed to hand over. He also asserted that the defendants had agreed to measure the property and fix the four boundaries prior to execution of the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and had repeatedly contacted the defendants over the phone seeking delivery of the title documents. He further stated that he had engaged the services of one P.Raja Manickam of the same village to act as Mediator and Agent on behalf of the defendants.

6.2. However, the plaintiff contended that the defenda