A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations from the agreement's inception. Suppression of material facts, failure to adhere to court-mandated payment timelines, and lack of promptness in proceeding with the contract disentitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief of specific performance.

ORDER

1.This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet in A.S. No.2 of 2014 dated 02.12.2014. The 1^st respondent herein has filed a Suit as against the appellant herein and the 2^nd respondent in O.S. No.20 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet. The said Suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in A.S. No.2 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants 1 and 2.

2. The brief facts of the Plaint are as follows:

The defendants 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the Suit property. The Plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 entered into a Sale Agreement in respect of the Suit property. The sale price was fixed at Rs.4.9 lakhs and a written agreement was entered on 07.08.2003 and on the date of agreement, Rs.50,000/- was paid towards advance. The time was fixed to complete the sale as 3 months. When the Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,40,000/-, the defendants 1 and 2 were evading from executing the Sale Deed. Moreover, there was an attachment over the property. The said attachment was not raised by the defendants and thereafter, the Plaintiff had issued a notice dated 01.10.2005 calling upon the defendants to execute the Sale Deed, but they failed to perform their part of contract. Therefore, the applicant filed a Suit for the relief of ‘specific performance of contract’.

3. The brief avements of the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:-

The Suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of the Suit property and they entered into a Sale Agreement with the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- and also received an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards advance from the Plaintiff under a Sale Agreement dated 07.08.2003. As per the Sale Agreement, the Plaintiff should complete the sale transaction on or before 06.11.2003, i.e., within 3 months, failing which, the advance paid by the Plaintiff is liable to be forfeited. The Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract. The attachment is nothing to do with the Sale Agreement dated 07.08.2003. In fact, the defendants discharged the loan amount due to Lakshmiammal on 16.08.1989 itself. The receipt issued by the said Lakshmiammal for the discharge of the said loan was shown to the Plaintiff at the time of entering into a Sale Agreement on 07.08.2003 itself. Immediately after issuing notice dated 04.11.2003 to the defendants, the Plaintiff approached the defendants along with her sister for settlement and requested one month time for balance sale consideration, thereby, they also granted one month time, thereby the defendants had not issued any reply notice. Even after that, the Plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration. Therefore, the sale advance of Rs.50,000/- is liable to be forfeited and the agreement dated 07.08.2003 has to be treated as cancelled. The Plaintiff demanded the defendants to return the advance amount paid by her. As the Plaintiff failed to perform her part of contract, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement,