Specific performance requires timely action and demonstration of readiness and willingness, which was not proven here.

JUDGMENT

The second defendant in a suit for specific performance is the appellant.

The first respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of sale agreement and also for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The first appeal filed by the second defendant was also dismissed. Hence, the appellant/2nd defendant has come before this court by way of second appeal.

2. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the plaintiff and the first defendant in the suit are brothers. The first defendant in the suit purchased the agreement mentioned property from one Kathavaraya Gounder S/o. Subbaraya Gounder under sale deed dated 06-12-1985. He agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- and executed a sale agreement on 19-02-1991. On the date of sale agreement itself, the entire sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- was paid by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. The possession of the agreement mentioned property was also handed over to the plaintiff. Thus, from the date of agreement onwards, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the agreement mentioned property treating it as his own property. It was also stated that the plaintiff prescribed title to the suit property. Further, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that in view of close relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the plaintiff believed that the first defendant would execute the sale deed at any time on request made by the plaintiff. Just prior to the filing of the suit, the first defendant attempted to alienate the property to defendants 2 and 3. Hence, a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 04.03.2009 calling upon the defendants 1 to 3 not to encumber the property. The defendants came up with false reply. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for specific performance of sale agreement dated 19.02.1991. The plaintiff also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit property.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the execution of sale agreement. It was his specific case that the suit sale agreement was a forged document and the possession of agreement mentioned property was never handed over to the plaintiff. It was also stated that the first defendant sold the property to second defendant for a valuable consideration and hence, the first defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The appellant/ 2^nd defendant in the suit filed a written statement denying the execution of suit sale agreement. The second defendant also denied the claim made by the plaintiff that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It was further pleaded by the second defendant that she purchased the property on 05.03.2009 from the first defendant for valuable consideration and she was a bonafide purchaser of the property and hence, the suit shall be dismissed.

5. Before the trial court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1. The attestor and scribe to Exhibit A1, suit sale agreement were examined as PW2 and PW3. One independent witness was examined as PW4. On behalf of the plaintiff, 23 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A23. The second defendant was examined as DW1 and one independent witness was examined as DW2. On behalf of the defendants, four documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. 6. The Trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the suit sale agreement was a genuine document. It concluded that the plaintiff was entitled t