For specific performance, a plaintiff must consistently prove readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. Failure to do so, along with unexplained delays, can result in denial of the relief sought.

JUDGMENT :

P.VADAMALAI, J. 

This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated31.08.2017 made in O.S.No.78 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai.

2.The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.78 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai. The respondent is the defendant in that suit.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts are as below:

(a) The case of the plaintiff (appellant herein ) :-

The suit property measuring a total extent of 51 cents in S.No.110/4 of Kochadai Village, Madurai South Taluk, belonged to the original defendant G.Ramchandran. He agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per cent. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a sale agreement on 09.03.2006. The plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant as advance. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the time for completing the performance is fixed at one year from the date of the agreement. The Government of Tamil Nadu announced a scheme road through the suit property to an extent of 14 cents. The defendant agreed to receive the sale price fixed by the government. If the said 14 cents is not acquired, the plaintiff will pay the cost of Rs.25,000/- per cent. Further, it was agreed that if the plaintiff sold the said 14 cents for more than Rs.25,000/- per cent, the excess amount will be shared equally. The defendant has to assist the plaintiff in converting the suit property into house sites and the defendant has to furnish the required documents. The defendant further received Rs.3,50,000/- on 26.12.2006 and he received another Rs.30,000/-. Thus, the defendant received a total sum of Rs.4,80,000/- towards advance out of sale consideration. In the first week of January 2007, the plaintiff met the defendant to fix the date for registering the sale and stated that he is willing to pay the balance sale consideration. The defendant replied that he would fix it after Pongal. Then, the plaintiff prepared a draft sale deed through his counsel and arranged to purchase stamp papers. Since the plaintiff had not received any reply from the defendant, he met the defendant in the last week of January 2007. The defendant suddenly demanded the plaintiff to pay the cost for the proposed acquired land of14 cents by the government and the plaintiff promised to repay the compensation awarded by the government. The defendant again agreed to execute the sale deed during the third week of March, 2007. The plaintiff waited patiently as the defendant is relative. The plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part, but the defendant has been evading. So, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 21.03.2007 to the defendant, asking him to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration. On 22.03.2007, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was taking steps to sell the suit property to a third party. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.336 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town, against the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining him from alienating the suit property. The plaintiff reserved his right to file a separate suit for specific performance. The plaintiff filed a petition under Order II Rule 2 of CPC., for filing separate suit for other reliefs. In that suit, the defendant filed the written statement admitting the sale agreement, but he falsely contended that the plaintiff could not mobilize the funds for completing the sale. Thereafter, the plaintif