Specific performance is a discretionary equitable remedy requiring proof of continuous readiness and willingness. If performance is impossible or the party is unwilling, courts may exercise equitable jurisdiction to grant a money decree for the refund of advance payments based on defendant admissions, even without specific prayer.

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants for the relief of Specific Performance of Contract based on the agreement dated 07.05.2018; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of property and for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property to any third parties.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

(i) The plaintiff, viz., M/s Love and Concern (Trust) represented as President of the Plaintiff had originally entered into a tenancy agreement in respect of the suit property with the 1st defendant and the said agreement is dated 11.03.1992. Pursuant to the said agreement, the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the property and he is paying rent of Rs.1,800/- per month. Further, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as advance. Originally, the suit property belongs to T.R.P.Kothandaraman and after his demise, the defendants 1 to 10, being legal heirs are entitled to the suit property. The defendants 1 to 10 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,51,14,365/- and the registered sale agreement was executed between the parties on 07.05.2018 and on the same day, a sum of Rs.1,15,42,500/- was paid towards advance of the sale price.

(ii) Further more, the plaintiff and the defendants had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to the suit property prior to the suit agreement, but due to certain unexpected subsequent events, they were unable to proceed further with the same, thereby they decided to enter into a registered agreement dated 07.05.2018. On various dates, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,15,42,500/- to the defendants. The remaining amount of Rs.2,35,71,865/- to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. In the said agreement, it was clearly mentioned that the purchaser, as a tenant, who was already in possession of 2790 sq.ft., of the schedule mentioned property, through tenancy agreement dated 11.03.1992 and after entering into the said agreement, the plaintiff is in occupation of entire suit property and enjoying the same.

(iii) The time fixed for completion of sale is 10 months, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying a balance of sale consideration, but the defendants evaded to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued notice dated 11.12.2021 to the defendants expressing his willingness to purchase the property by paying the remaining sale price. But the defendants have failed to perform their part of contract. The plaintiff is in possession of the property and the defendants are bound to execute the sale deed, therefore, filed the suit.

3. The brief averments of the Written Statements filed by the defendants 1, 2 and 6 to 8 are as follows:

(I) As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff is a Trust, but no documents have been filed to show that the plaintiff is a Trust. The plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit on behalf of the Trust. The agreement has been made between the defendants and M/s Love and Concern represented by Mr.John Venkatesan, but no authorisation letter was filed along with the plaint to show that the said John Venkatesan is representing the plaintiff’s trust. The suit is based on the agreement of sale dated 07.05.2018 and the suit was filed on 22.12.2021, therefore,