Plaintiff must establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract to be entitled to specific performance despite substantial payment.

(Order of the Court was made by K.RAJASEKAR, J.

The unsuccessful appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of their suit for specific performance of the agreement dated

19.08.1998.

2. The appellant/plaintiff's case is that the defendant was allotted the suit property via a partition deed dated 12.08.1996. After taking possession, the defendant approached the appellant/plaintiff, expressing an urgent need for money. To fulfill the defendant's financial need, the appellant/plaintiff expressed willingness to purchase the property. Accordingly, a sale consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/- was agreed upon, and an agreement to that effect was entered into on 19.08.1998, with the appellant/plaintiff paying Rs. 30,00,000/- as advance. The defendant also agreed to hand over all original documents. However, upon demanding the documents, they were not provided. Instead, the defendant collected money in installments, borrowing an additional sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as advance until 08.09.2021, leaving a balance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Because the defendant did not hand over the title deeds or execute the sale deed, the appellant/plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 30.01.2023, which was returned. Hence, the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.

3. Before the trial Court, though notices were sent to the defendant, he did not come forward to receive the notice. Consequently, the notice was served through substituted service, and the defendant was declared ex parte. The trial Court proceeded with the trial, during which the appellant/plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exhibits A-1 to A-13. After considering the evidence, the trial Court concluded that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to the requested relief because the suit was not filed within a reasonable time frame, specifically 24 years after the cause of action arose, during which the property value had significantly increased. Therefore, the trial Court refused to grant the relief but ordered a refund of the advance sale consideration.

4. The appellant/plaintiff, aggrieved by the denial of specific performance of the contract, has approached to this Court to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has no discretionary power according to the amended provisions of Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act. He further submitted that the escalation of the value of the property is not a ground to deny specific performance, noting that nearly 90% of the sale consideration was already paid to the defendant, as evidenced by several endorsements made by the defendant. He argued that the trial Court dismissed the suit without appreciating these facts and prayed to set aside the same, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Munishamappa Vs. M.Rama Reddy and Ors., reported in (2023) 6 MLJ

553

6. The points for consideration are:-

“(1) Whether the appellant is proved his case for the relief of specific performance?; (2) Whether the appellant is entitled for specific performance of the contract dated 12.08.1996 by filing the suit in the year 2023?;

and (3) whether the appellant is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for the above 24 years.”

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant herein.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that although the plaintiff paid the defendant Rs. 30,00,000/- as an advance on the sale consideration as early as 19.08.1998, an additional sum of Rs. 3,00,