Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness for specific performance; evidentiary contradictions justify denial.

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 10.02.2003. The suit was decreed by trial Court. 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.

3. According to the appellant/plaintiff, he entered into suit sale agreement with the defendant for purchase of agreement mentioned property for sale consideration of Rs.1,09,000/- on 16.06.2007. On the date of agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- and balance amount was agreed to be paid on or before 15.01.2008.

4. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and approached the defendant several times to pay the balance consideration and on 04.01.2008 requested him to execute sale deed. As per the instruction given by the defendant, the plaintiff waited in the Sub Registrar’s Office on 14.01.2008. However, the the defendant failed to turn up. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendant through mediators and he was assured that sale transaction would be completed within a month. As per the instruction given by the defendant, the plaintiff waited in the Sub Registrar’s Office on 14.02.2008. However, again he failed to turn up. In these circumstances, the plaintiff issued pre-suit notice on 22.02.2008 calling upon the defendant to complete the sale transaction. The defendant issued a reply notice on 23.02.2008 with false allegation claiming that the agreement was cancelled. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement.

5. The defendant filed a written statement and resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant specifically denied the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property was delivered in favour of the plaintiff on the date of agreement. The defendant also denied the plaintiff’s averment that he was waiting at the Sub Registrar’s Office on 14.01.2008 and 14.02.2008.

6. It is further pleaded by the defendant, the averments made by the plaintiff in the pre-suit notice are all false statement and on these pleadings, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1, one of the attestor to the sale agreement was examined as PW.2. The document writer was examined as PW.3. Nine documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff as Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B3.

8. The trial Court on consideration of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Court, Tiruppur. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff waited in Sub Registrar’s Office on 14.01.2008 well before expiry of the time stipulated in the suit sale agreement with the balance sale consideration, however, the defendant failed to turn up to complete the sale transaction. He also submitted that after default by the defendant on 14.01.2008, there was a mediation and the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed within the month. Hence, as per the understanding, the plaintiff again went to Sub Reg