A party asserting a right to specific performance must prove readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR and CMP No. 5381 of 2026 Venkatesan (Died), 1. 1.Karpagam

2. Vishal

3. Ramadurga ..Appellants Vs Narasimman (died), 1. Saradha 2. Revathi

3. Ranjith kumar ..Respondents Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30-10-2025 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge Court, at Ponneri, setting aside the Judgement and decree dated 25-07-2012 passed in O.S.No.263 of 2005, by the District Munsif Court at Ponneri and thereby to decree the suit in OS.No.263 of 2005 with costs throughout.

For Appellants: Mr.Krishnasamy R.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant herein. He filed a suit in O.S.No.263 of 2005 against the respondents seeking specific performance and the same was decreed by the Trial Court. The first appellate court, in an appeal filed by the respondent/defendant in A.S.No.79 of 2015, reversed the findings of the Trial court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff/appellant has come before this court.

2. According to the appellant/plaintiff , he entered into a sale agreement with the defendant on 27.11.2002 to purchase 55 cents of undivided land in various survey numbers described in the plaint schedule for a sale consideration of Rs.99,000/-. According to the plaintiff, he paid a sum of Rs.98,000/- on the date of sale agreement itself and as per terms of the sale agreement, the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,000/- shall be paid within a period of 90 days from the date of sale agreement. It is further stated that the time was not at all considered to be the essence of the contract under the sale agreement and inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,000/- and to execute the sale deed, the defendant had been evading to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 23.05.2005 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. However, there was no reply from the defendant. In such circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for specific performance.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant denying the execution of suit sale agreement. It was the specific case of the defendant that he never entered into the sale agreement with the plaintiff on 27.11.2002. It was further claimed by the defendant that he had no absolute right over the suit property and his two male children were also having interest over the subject property.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and three documents, namely, sale agreement, legal notice and postal acknowlegement card were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 on the side of the plaintiff. The defendant was examined as DW1 and the copy of sale deed executed by the defendant and his brother in favour of the wife of the plaintiff in respect of some other properties was marked as Ex.B1 on the side of the defendant.

5. The Trial Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to get the decree for specific performance and thereby decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.79 of 2015 before the Principal Sub Court, Ponneri. The first appellate court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff has come before this court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the respondent/ defendant denied the execution of the suit sale agreement, however, during evidence, he admitted his signature found in the sale