AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
477 paragraphs · 11,326 wordsThis appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1984 in O.S.No.2066 of 1961 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai.
The suit is for specific performance. The defendants in the suit are the first and the second appellants and the plaintiff in the suit is the respondent.
During the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant died and his legal representatives are impleaded as appellants 3 to 6 in the appeal.
The plaint averments are that the mother of the defendants, by name, late R.K. Chengammal, was the owner of the house property bearing door
no.28 (New No.47), Ganga Nagar, Chennai-24 (hereinafter referred to as ""the suit property"") and when the owner expressed her intention to sell
the suit property, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. In pursuance of the negotiations between the parties, late R.K. Chengammal entered
into an agreement of sale dated 26.1.1977 with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 51,000
(Rupees Fifty One Thousand only), without any encumbrance and the plaintiff has paid an advance amount of Rs.5,000 to late R.K. Chengammal
at the time of execution of the agreement of sale. The first defendant is the attesting witness to the agreement. As per the plaint allegations, the
terms of the agreement provide that the execution and registration of sale deed should be completed within three months from the date of the
agreement and R.K. Chengammal should also produce encumbrance certificate and other documents relating to the suit property to the plaintiff. It
is stated that R.K. Chengammal did not comply with the terms and postponed the registration. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.20,000 was paid
by the plaintiff to R.K. Chengammal on 23.1.1978 in the presence of the defendants and the receipt of the same was also endorsed on the last
page of the agreement of sale and the defendants have signed the receipt as witnesses along with one M.A. Abbas who acted as a mediator. It is
stated that the amount was paid on the assurance given by R.K. Chengammal and the defendants that the sale would be completed within a short
time.
Further, it is stated that R.K. Chengammal died and after her death, the plaintiff has demanded the defendants that the deed of sale should be
executed in her favour informing them that she was always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration. According to her, though the
defendants promised several times to complete the sale deed, they failed and neglected to do so. It is stated that the first defendant for herself and
as the Power of Attorney Agent of the second defendant sent a lawyer''s notice dated 28.12.1980 to the plaintiff demanding payment of rent from
February, 1980 onwards and informing the plaintiff that she has committed wilful default in payment of rent and she was liable to be evicted from
the suit property for which the plaintiff sent a reply on 7.1.1981 denying the allegations and demanding the defendants to execute the sale deed as
per the agreement of sale. In the notice, the plaintiff has also stated that she would approach Civil Court if her request is not complied with. The
plaintiff thereafter filed the suit on 12.1.1981 alleging that the attitude and the conduct of the defendants as well as R.K. Chengammal are
unreasonable and unwarranted and the defendants as legal heirs of late R.K. Chengammal, are bound to execute the deed of sale in favour of the
plaintiff. She has stated that she is always ready and willing to perform her pan of the agreement for sale and accordingly, she filed the suit for
specific performance.
The first defendant has filed a written statement stating that she is not disputing the agreement entered into by her mother with the plaintiff for the
sale of the suit property. According to the first defendant, the sale should have been completed within a period of three months from the date of the
agreement and the plaintiff had no funds to complete the sale and therefore, she has been evading the transaction. The first defendant has stated
that all relevant title deeds were handed over to the plaintiff. It is the case of the first defendant that the plaintiff has been postponing the execution
and registration of sale deed and it is not correct to state that the mother of the defendants was postponing the execution and registration of sale
deed. The case of the first defendant is that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to pay the balance of the sale consideration and complete the
sale. The first defendant has admitted the receipt of Rs.20,000 by her mother in the year 1978. It is stated that the plaintiff did not perform her part
of the contract, but requested extension of time for the completion of the sale. The first defendant has stated that that no assurance was given either
by the mother Chengammal or by any of the defendants that after the advance amount is received, the sale would be completed within a short time.
It is stated that the plaintiff is a tenant and after the death of the first defendant''s mother in 1979, the first defendant and her mother were
demanding the plaintiff to complete the sale transaction, but the plaintiff was evading to complete the sale transaction, requesting extension of time
for the completion of the sale.
It is the case of the first defendant that the claim of the plaintiff that she is ready and willing to pay the balance amount and complete the sale is
not correct and the plaintiff has not even paid the rent regularly and when the first defendant issued a notice calling upon the plaintiff to pay the rent,
the plaintiff issued a reply. The case of the first defendant is that the sale agreement is not valid and enforceable and the plaintiff had abandoned her
rights under the agreement. It is also stated that the previous conduct of the plaintiff cannot be countenanced for granting the relief of specific
performance as the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. After referring to the exchange of notices between the
parties, it is stated that the first defendant was ready to execute sale deed, both in her capacity as legal heir of Chengammal and as power of
Attorney Agent for the second defendant. The case of the first defendant is that the plaintiff had abandoned her rights and the plaintiff had no funds
and she has sworn to a false affidavit filed along with the petition seeking for extension of time for deposit of balance of sale consideration and the
conduct of the plaintiff prior to the suit as well as after she approached the Court is a proof to show that she was not ready and willing to perform
her part of the agreement. According to the first defendant, the agreement cannot be enforced against her as well as against the second defendant.
The trial Court, on the above pleadings, has framed as many as five issues for consideration and the trial Court, after considering the evidence,
oral and documentary, held that the suit filed is within the lime and there is no evidence of waiver or abandonment of right by the plaintiff. The trial
Court also held that it cannot be held that because of the delay, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. The trial Court came
to the conclusion that time is not the essence of the contract and the subsequent rise in price cannot be taken as a reason for refusing the relief of
specific performance of the agreement. In so far as the conduct of the plaintiff during the course of litigation is concerned, the trial Court held that
the order passed by the trial Court was with reference to the grant of temporary injunction and under the provisions of Section 28(1) of the
Specific Relief Act, the Court has the power to extend time for making deposit. According to the trial Court, the Court has the power in a suit for
specific performance to extend the time for deposit and the failure of plaintiff to deposit money in the Court before the decree or even after the
decree cannot be a reason to deny the relief of specific performance. The trial Court also held that it was the first defendant who was not willing
and ready to complete the sale. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was in a position to pay the balance of sale consideration and in such
circumstances, the trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff was ready and willing to complete the sale and consequently, decreed the suit as
prayed for. It is against the judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred.
It is also necessary to notice that during the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant Raghavachari died on 13.1.1998 and an affidavit was
filed by one Srinivasan, Power Agent of the legal representatives of the deceased Raghavachari who are residing in United Kingdom, and
accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased Raghavachari were brought on record. Further, it is necessary to mention here that before
the trial Court, the first defendant acted as the Power of Attorney Agent for the second defendant and now, after the death of the second
appellant, a third party, one Srinivasan is acting a Power Agent for the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant.
Mr.T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the agreement for sale was entered into on 26.1.1977
and under the agreement, the execution and registration of sale deed should be completed within three months from the date of the agreement
subject to satisfaction of certain conditions and the suit was instituted on 12.1.1981 and hence, the suit is barred by time in view of the Article 54
of the Limitation Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that though there was a further advance of Rs.20,000 on 23.1.1978, that would not
extend the period of limitation. He referred to Article 54 of the Limitation Act, and submitted that when date has been fixed for the performance of
the contract, three year period referred to in Article 54 of the Limitation Act commenced and began to run from 26.4.1977 and the limitation
cannot be extended by any further payment.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that it is not the case of the plaintiff either in the notice issued prior to the institution of the suit or in the
plaint that because of want of consent from the competent authority, sale could not be effected. Learned senior counsel referred to Ex.A-4 and
submitted that there was no demand for no objection certificate and the grounds urged in the notice (Ex.A-4) do not show that it is due to want of
such consent of the competent authority that the sale was getting postponed. Therefore he submitted that limitation for the institution of the suit
commenced on 26.4.1977 and the time began to run from 26.4.1977, and the suit should have been instituted within 3 years from 26.4.1977.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that the plaintiff was never willing and ready to perform her port of the contract and she was not
possessed of funds to pay the balance of sale consideration at any time. He referred to the pleadings and also the order passed by the trial Court in
I.A.No.5370 of 1981 wherein the plaintiff has prayed for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property and the
trial Court has granted interim injunction, by order dated 31.3.1981, on condition that the plaintiff should deposit the balance of sale consideration
of Rs.26,000 into Court on or before 22.4.1981 (Ex.B-3). Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the petition in I.A.No.6983 of 1981 (Ex.B-4)
in I.A.No.5370 of 1981 wherein the plaintiff has prayed for extension of time by seven days from 22.4.1981 for the deposit of the balance of sale
consideration. He referred to the order passed in I.A.No.6983 of 1981 wherein the trial Court held that there were no merits in the petition
seeking extension of time and the reasons given for extension of time are not bona fide, and on those grounds, the petition was dismissed. Learned
senior counsel also referred to the affidavit filed along with I.A.No.6983 of 1981 seeking extension of time wherein the plaintiff has stated that she
had left the amount of Rs.26,000 with her parents who were residing at their native place, Mysore and her parents, in turn, lent the amount to one
of their relatives and after the conditional order was passed by the Court, she asked her parents to make arrangements to collect the money and
send the same. Learned senior counsel also referred to the statement of the plaintiff in the affidavit that she was laid up with fever for 10 days, and
he also referred to the deposition of the plaintiff as P.W.1 wherein she has stated that the money was kept in her house and since the Court has not
extended the time, she could not deposit the money. Learned senior counsel therefore submitted that the plaintiff has come forward with a false
case and rendered false evidence in the matter of deposit of the balance of sale consideration into Court. Learned senior counsel therefore
submitted that the trial Court was not correct in proceeding on the basis that the Court has the power to grant extension of time u/s 28(1) of the
Specific Relief Act. He submitted that the trial Court has overlooked the conflicting stand taken by the plaintiff which would establish that the
plaintiff has not come forward with clean hands and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance.
Learned senior counsel also referred to Ex.A-5 and submitted that bank account was opened only on May 14, 1981 with a sum of Rs.6,201
as opening balance and in February, 1983 only, the balance was Rs.26,142,45. He referred to the affidavit and also the evidence of the plaintiff
and submitted that three versions were given by the plaintiff as regards deposit of money. Learned senior counsel submitted that there is no
evidence to show that she has taken any step to perform her part of the contract and according to the learned senior counsel, she has come to the
Court with a false case. Learned senior counsel submitted that the mere statement that she is ready and willing is not sufficient and the minimum
requirement that she was possessed of funds should be established. Learned senior counsel also submitted that it is not equitable to grant the relief
of specific performance considering the long passage of time from the date of agreement, in view of the spiraling price of the property. Learned
senior counsel submitted that the plaintiff has come with a false case as regards the possession of money and therefore the trial Court was not
correct in granting decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel relied on the
following decisions:
Mahboob Pasha Vs. Syed Zaheeruddin and Others, ; 2. Ramzan Vs. Hussaini, ; 3. Craft Centre and Others Vs. The Koncherry Coir Factories,
Cherthala, ; 4. Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gurappa Channabasappa Paramaj, ; 5. Smt. Thakamma Mathew Vs. M. Azamathulla Khan
and others, ; 6. K.S. Vidyanadam and Others Vs. Vairavan, ; 7. Koothapadayachi and another v. Arjuna Pillai and two others, 1998 (1) LW 301;
Vyapuri Gounder v. (Minor) Vijayan and others, 1978 TLNI 62; 9. Guruswami Gounder Vs. Kesave Reddiar and Another, ; 10. Sankaran, S.
and others v. N.G. Radhakrishnan, 1994 (2) LW 642; 11. Lourdu Mari David and others Vs. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy and others, ; 12.
Ramaswamy Gounder v. Venkatachalam, 1976 (I) MLJ 243; 13. Pachaiappan and others v. S.P. Koon Man, 1996 (2) LW 1; 14. Pitchan
Ambalam v. Kasi Pitchan Ambatam, 1996 (2) LW 577; 15. Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, 1999 (7) Supreme 175; 16. Vasantha
and others Vs. M. Senguttuvan, ; 17. His Holiness His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji Vs. Shri Sita Ram Thapar, ; 18. K. Narendra Vs.
Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd., ; 19. V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Vs. C. Alagappan and Another, ; 20. Gowrammal @ Gowri v. V. Pechimuthu,
1996 (2) LW 417; 21. K. Kallaiah Vs. Ningegowda, .
Mr.N.S. Varadhachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent referred to Ex.A-2 and submitted that there is no dispute that Ex.A-2
was attested by the first defendant. His submission was that the parties never intended to put an end to the agreement and if the intention of the
parties was to put an end to the agreement, the endorsement and receipt under Ex.A-2 would not have taken place. His submission was that time
is not essence of the contract. He referred to the written statement and submitted that as per the written statement even after the death of
Chengammal, the plaintiff was demanding that the sale should be completed. He submitted that prior to the death of Chengammal, there was no
question of abandonment of the contract and the payment under Ex.A-2 was made prior to the death of Chengammal. He submitted that both the
parties kept the agreement alive and hence, the first part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act does not apply. He referred to the agreement and
submitted that under clause-7, sanction of the competent authority is required to be obtained. He referred to the provisions of Section 26 of the
Act 34 of 1976 and submitted that since consent was neither obtained from the competent authority, nor is there any evidence to show that any
application was filed before the competent authority to obtain consent, the fault is on the part of the vendor and the second part of Article 54 of the
Limitation Act alone would apply.
Learned counsel further submitted that to keep the contract alive, the plaintiff has paid money and after Chengammal death, the plaintiff has
been demanding that the sale should be completed and the plaintiff has established that she is capable of raising the money. Learned Counsel
submitted that the fact that the plaintiff has filed an application for extension of time to deposit the balance of sale consideration, as ordered by the
Court is not a ground to state that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to pay the money. Learned counsel also submitted that as regards hardship
to the plaintiff, all the relevant facts should be taken into account.
Learned counsel also submitted that the second defendant, Raghavachari died during the pendency of the appeal and the legal representatives
of the second defendants, who are appellants 3 to 6 herein, are residing in the United Kingdom and they have given power of attorney agent to a
third party whereas the first defendant was the power of attorney agent of the second defendant since deceased and there is no explanation for the
change of power of attorney from the first appellant to a third party. Learned counsel submitted that all the aspects of the matter should be taken
into account. He submitted that hardship should be viewed both from the point of view of the plaintiff and that of the defendants. His further
submission was that the plaintiff has not come with false case which would disentitle the plaintiff from claiming the relief of specific performance. He
submitted that the stand of the plaintiff taken in I.A. proceedings is not relevant in considering the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief of specific performance. Learned counsel relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions:
Lakshminarayana Reddiar Vs. Singaravelu Naicker and Another, ; 2. K. Venkoji Rao Vs. M. Abdul Khuddur Kureshi, ; 3. Saraswatfii Ammal
v. Jayarama Rao and others, 1999 (1) LW 683; 4. Guruswami Gounder Vs. Kesave Reddiar and Another, .
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The points that arise for consideration are (1) whether the
suit filed is barred by limitation;(2) whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement; and (3) whether the plaintiff is
entitled to the relief of specific performance.
Point No.1 The suit was filed on 12.1.1981 to enforce the agreement dated 24.1.1977. Under clause-7 of the agreement, the execution and
registration of sale deed should be completed within three months from the date of agreement subject to certain conditions. That apart, there was a
subsequent payment towards sale consideration on 23.1.1978 which was acknowledged by the deceased Chengammal. The relevant Article of the
Limitation Act is Article 54 and the said Article reads as under:-
For specific performance of a contract -- three years -- The date fixed for the performance, or if no such dated is fixed, when the plaintiff has
notice that performance is refused.
Under the above Article, the period of limitation for specific performance of a contract is three years and under the said Article, there are two
alternative points of time which would be starting point for limitation -One from the date fixed for the performance of the contract; and another, if
date is not fixed, when the plaintiff had noticed that the performance was refused by the other party. I agree with Mr.T.R. Rajagopalan, learned
senior counsel that the subsequent payment made on 23.1.1978 does not have the effect of extending the period of limitation from which the time
for institution of the suit begin to run. In my view, learned trial Judge was not correct in holding that the time limit for institution of the suit should be
computed from the date of subsequent payment. I hold that it is not a money suit, but it is a suit for specific performance of contract and the
subsequent payment has no effect while computing the period of limitation.
However, I am of the view that the subsequent payment has relevance in considering the question whether the parties intended that time is
essence of the contract. I hold that the conduct of Chengammal in receiving money on 26.1.1978 shows that the parties never intended that time is
essence of the contract. The written statement of the first defendant shows that till the time of death of Chengammal, the parties never intended that
time is the essence of the contract. The averment in paragraph-8 of the written statement shows that after the death of Chengammal in 1979, the
second defendant was demanding the plaintiff to complete the sale transaction which shows that the parties never intended that time is the essence
of the contract.
The next question that arises is whether the first part or the second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act would apply to the transaction in
question. A careful reading of the various decisions reveals that if the date for the performance of agreement is fixed or can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances, then the first part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act would apply and if no date has been fixed or inferred, then the
second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act would apply. Under Clause-7 of the agreement, the execution and registration shall be completed
within three months from the date of agreement subject to sanction by the competent authority. The agreement also provides that the sale is subject
to sanction by the competent authority. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff, neither in the notice dated 7.1.1981, nor in the plaint, has stated about
the failure on the part of the defendants to obtain sanction from the competent authority under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.
In the evidence also, the plaintiff has not deposed anything about the requirement of obtaining the sanction from the competent authority. I hold that
notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff has not stated either in the notice or in the plaint or in his evidence about the requirement of obtaining the
sanction from the competent authority, in considering the questions whether the suit is barred by limitation or not, and whether any date has been
fixed for the performance of the contract, all the clauses in the agreement have to be taken into account.
The agreement was entered into on 26.1.1977 and at the time when the agreement was entered into, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, enacted by the President of India by virtue of the power conferred by Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu State
Legislative (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1976 was holding the field. Section 26 of the said Act imposed an embargo on transfer of any urban
property or urbanisable land with a building (whether constructed before or after the commencement of the Act) by way of sale, mortgage, gift or
lease for a period exceeding ten years of commencement of the Act or from the date on which the building is constructed, whichever is later,
except with the previous permission in writing from the competent authority. Section 27 of the said Act also imposed the ban on the registering
authority to register any transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise of any urban immovable property with building thereon, if
necessary certificate was not produced. Section 26 regulated the procedure for obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Urban
Land Ceiling Act, 1976.
Admittedly, the agreement was entered into for the sale of an urban property with building thereon. The Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 was in
force in the State of Tamil Nadu till the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was enacted by the State Legislature and the
State Act was published in Tamil Nadu Gazette on 17.5.1978. Therefore, during the currency of the operation of the Urban Land Ceiling Act,
1976 (President''s Act), there was a prohibition against transfer of any urban property with building thereon without prior permission in writing
from the competent authority. It is not the case of the defendants that they have applied for permission for the transfer of the land with building
thereon, but such permission was either granted or was deemed to have been granted u/s 26(5) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. It is also
significant to notice that a sum of Rs.20,000 was received by Chengammal in January, 1978 when the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 was in force
and therefore, the limitation for filing the suit would commence on 17.5.1978 when the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 came into force
repealing the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (President''s Act).
In so far as the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Mahboob Pasha Vs. Syed Zaheeruddin and Others, is concerned, it is an authority for
the proposition that where time for performance of contract is fixed, the limitation begins to run from the date fixed for performance irrespective of
the fact whether time is essence of the contract or not. Applying the ratio of the Karnataka High Court, since the agreement in the instant case is
subject to sanction from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, it is not possible to hold that without the sanction from
the competent authority, the time to institute the suit would begin to run from the date fixed for the performance of the agreement. I am unable to
accept the submission of Mr.T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel that limitation would begin to run on the expiry of three months from the
date of the agreement. When there is a specific clause in the agreement that the sale is subject to the sanction of the competitive authority under the
Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, the limitation would not begin to run from the dated fixed for performance unless there is evidence to show that the
consent of the competent authority was obtained.
In so far as the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramzan Vs. Hussaini, is concerned, the Supreme Court held that though a specific date has
not been mentioned for the seller to execute the deed of sale, but there is a reference to happening of certain event, immediately after happening of
that particular event, the period of limitation would begin to run. I hold that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramzan''s case, is not of much
help to the learned senior counsel for the appellants for the same reasons stated supra while distinguishing the decision of the Karnataka High
Court in Mahboob Pasha Vs. Syed Zaheeruddin and Others, .
The decision of the Kerala High Court in Craft Centre and Others Vs. The Koncherry Coir Factories, Cherthala, is of general in nature
wherein the Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Section 5, are mandatory and where the suit is barred by time on the
face of it, the Court is duty bound to dismiss the same even at appellate stage without a question of limitation is not of much help to the appellants.
The other decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, viz., 0) Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gurappa
Channabasappa Paramaj, ; and (ii) Smt. Thakamma Mathew Vs. M. Azamathulla Khan and others, are not applicable to the facts of the case as
the question whether the suit is barred by limitation would depend upon the facts of each case and hence, the decisions of the Supreme Court and
the Karnataka High Court are not helpful to the learned senior counsel for the appellants,
As for the decision in K. Kallaiah Vs. Ningegowda, the Karnataka High Court has held that when date is fixed for the performance of
contract, the suit should be regulated by the former part of the Article 54 of the Limitation Act, and not by the latter part of the said Article. The
Karnataka High Court also held that the doctrine, time is not the essence of contract has nothing to do with the period of limitation. As already held
by me, the question regarding the fixation of time for the performance of contract would depend upon the facts of each case and since the sale is
subject to the sanction from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, for the purpose of limitation under Article 54 of the
Limitation Act, it is open to the plaintiffs to take into account the period of operation of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.
The decision of this Court in Koothapadayachi and another v. Arjuna Pillai and two others, 1998 (1) LW 301 was rendered with reference to
the facts of that case. In that case, learned Judge held that limitation for specific performance of contract was three years from the date fixed for the
performance or if no date is fixed, from the date when the plaintiff refused to receive the balance of sale consideration. In Koothapadayachi''s case,
1998 (1) LW 301 it was found, the time fixed for performance was at any time before 15.6.1976 and this Court held that the suit ought to have
been fixed within three years from that date. I hold, on the facts of the present case, the date for performance of the contract is to be ascertained
from the date of sanction of the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and it is not possible to hold that limitation would
begin to run on the expiry of three months fixed from the date of agreement. As already observed by me, there is a condition superadded in the
agreement that sanction of the competent authority is to be obtained. Therefore, the grant of sanction from the competent authority is a pre-
condition for the sale and it is not possible to hold that limitation would begin to run before the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976
(President''s Act) as the sanction under the said Act for the transfer of the property was not obtained during the currency of the said Act and after
its repeal, the condition imposed in the agreement for sale to obtain the sanction for transfer is automatically lifted.
On the other hand, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent support the case of the respondent. This Court in
Lakshminarayana Reddiar Vs. Singaravelu Naicker and Another, held that the dated fixed for performance must be not only a date which can be
identified without any doubt as a particular point of time but it should also be a date which the parties intended to be the date when the contract
could be performed. Applying the said decision, the limitation would begin to run after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. In K.
Venkoji Rao Vs. M. Abdul Khuddur Kureshi, , the Karnataka High Court has referred to the earlier decision in Mahboob Pasha Vs. Syed
Zaheeruddin and Others, and held that where the time is extended, then the latter part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act would apply. In
Saraswathi Ammal v. Jayarama Rao and others, 1999 (1) LW 683, a learned Judge of this Court has held that when time limit is extended and the
rigor of the time limit is given a go-by and the agreement did not consider time to be the essence of the contract; the first part of Article 54 of
Limitation Act would not apply and only the. latter part of Article 54 would apply.
Following the ratio of the decision of this Court as well as the decision of the Karnataka High Court, I hold that time limit is not essence of the
contract in the instant case. The fact that Chengammal received the money in January, 1978 after expiry of three months period fixed for
performance of the contract shows that the time is not essence of the contract. The agreement is also subject to the condition of obtaining prior
sanction from the competent authority. Considering the above facts, I hold that the time is not essence of the contract and since approval of the
competent authority was not obtained before the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, I hold that the second time of Article 54 of the
Limitation Act would apply and the suit filed on 12.1.1981 is not barred by limitation, either taking into account the date of payment in Ex.A-2 or
the date of repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (President''s Act).
Point No. 2 and 3: I am of the view that both the points can be considered together. The question whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to
perform her part of the agreement has to be decided with reference to the conduct of the parties and attending circumstances. The Supreme Court
in the case of His Holiness His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji Vs. Shri Sita Ram Thapar, points out the distinction between readiness and
willingness of plaintiff to perform his part of the contract as under:-
By readiness may be meant the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which includes his financial position to pay the purchase price. For
determining his willingness to perform his part of the contract, the conduct has to be properly scrutinised.
In Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, 1999 (7) Supreme 175, the Supreme Court again reiterated that compliance of readiness and
willingness has to be in spirit and substance, and not in letter and form. The Supreme Court after referring to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963, held as under:-
It is significant that this explanation carves out contract which involves payment of money as a separate class from Section 16(c). Explanation (i)
uses the words ""it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in Court any money except when so directed by
the Court. This speaks in negative term what is not essential for plaintiff to do. This more in support of plaintiff that he need not tender to the
defendant or deposit in Court any money but the plaintiff must (as per explanation ii) at least aver his performance or readiness and willingness to
perform his part to the contract.
In Koothapadayachi''s case, 1998 (1) LW 301, this Court has held that factum of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part
of the contract has to be ascertained with reference to the contract of the party and the attending circumstances, and readiness and willingness from
the date of agreement till the date of sale deed should be pleaded and proved and this Court held as under:-
Under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, readiness and willingness from the date of agreement till the date of sale deed should be pleaded and
proved. By the plaintiff making a statement in the plaint that he was ready from the beginning of the year 1976, an inference has to be drawn that
he was never ready and wilting to lake a sale deed before that time.
The above decision was reiterated by a learned Judge of this Court in Vasantha and others Vs. M. Senguttuvan, and after noticing the decision
of the Supreme Court in Gomatkinayagam Pillai and others v. Palaniswami Nadar, AIR 1967 SCWR 147, this Court held as under: -
In Gomathinayagam Pillai and others v. Palaniswami Nadar, AIR 1967 (II) SCWR 147, the Supreme Court held that in a suit for specific
performance, plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:-
The respondent has claimed a decree for specific performance and it is for him to establish that he was, since the date of the contract,
continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail. As observed by
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Season"". In a suit for specific performance, on the other hand, he treated
and was required by the Court to treat the contract as still subsisting. He had in that suit to allege, and if the fact was transversed, he was required
to prove a continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the contract to the time of the hearing, to perform the contract on his part. Failure
to make good that averment brought with it the inevitable dismissal of his suit. The respondent must in a suit for specific performance of an
agreement plead and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract continuously between the date of the contract and the
date of hearing of the suit.
Even if for single day, plaintiff-agreement holder is not ready to take the sale deed, the equitable remedy should not be granted. Readiness and
willingness must be there continuously from the date of agreement upto the date of hearing.
In Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade Vs. Ganapat Bhairu Kadam and others, , the Supreme Court has held that where there is an averment in the
plaint that purchaser sent registered notices to seller to execute sale deed and where there is a further averment by buyer that as per agreement he
was willing to pay the fees required for sale deed, costs of registration and balance amount of sale deed and where buyer has also deposed before
the Court that he was willing to pay fees and also the balance sale amount, it was held that buyer has not only averred but also proved that he was
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The Supreme Court has held as under-
Apart from the said averments in the plaint, we find that the appellant, in his deposition before the Court, has stated:-
I issued notice to heirs of Janabal to execute the sale deed. I was ready to pay remaining amount and act as per agreement. The defendants did not
execute the sale deed as per notice. They replied my notice (Exh.50). As defendanis are not willing to execute the sale deed I have filed this suit. I
am ready to pay remaining amount immediately. I am ready to pay costs as per agreement.
Respondent No.l, also in his deposition before the Court, has stated:-It is true that plaintiff was ready for sale-deed, but I was not ready.
In view of the aforesaid statements of the appellant and respondent No.l as well as the averments contained in, paragraphs 6 and 10 of the
plaint, it must be held (hat the appellant has not only averred, but has also proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract
under the agreement for sale. The appellate Court and the High Court were, therefore, in error in holding that the appellant had failed to comply
with the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and the appellant must be held entitled to a decree for specific performance of the
contract in the suit filed by him.
In Ramakrishnan v. Subbiah, 1999 (II) MLJ 404, a Division Bench of this Court held that purchaser need not produce the money, but must
fulfil the conditions, and this Court held as under:-
There are catena of decisions of this Court and the Apex Court to the effect that readiness and willingness do not imply that the purchaser must
produce money and the conditions to be fulfilled are that purchaser had done some act in furtherance of the contract and the act performed by him
was with certainty.
There is no dispute that during the life time of Chengammal, on 23.1.1978, a sum of Rs.20,000 was paid and after adjusting the advance money
already paid the plaintiff was obliged to pay the balance of Rs.26,000 only. In the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that she was always ready and
willing to pay balance sale price and complete the transaction. In the letter issued on 7.1.1981 (Ex.A-4), the plaintiff has also stated that she was
ready and willing to pay the balance sale amount and complete the transaction. She has produced passbook Ex.A-5 to prove her capacity to raise
money to pay the balance of Rs.26,000.
35..I hold that it is not essential that purchaser should produce money in cash before the Court, but it is necessary that the purchaser should act in
furtherance of the contract and the act performed by the purchaser should be with a view to get the deed of sale. In so far as the decision of the
Supreme Court in Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade Vs. Ganapat Bhairu Kadam and others, is concerned, not only the purchaser therein has made a
statement about his readiness and willingness to perform him part of the contract, but also the owner of the property has admitted that the plaintiff
was ready to get the deed of sale executed. In view of the statement of the purchaser as well as the seller coupled with the averments contained in
the plaint, the Supreme Court held that -the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement for sale.
The Supreme Court in Syed Dastagir''s case, 1997 (7) Supreme 175 held that compliance of readiness and willingness has to be in spirit and
substance and not in letter and form and the mechanical reproduction of exact words of Section cannot be insisted upon and the averment in the
plaint that major portion of amount had already been paid and balance sale consideration was deposited on the date of filing suit would establish
readiness and willingness of the plaintiff as required in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. As already observed by me, this Court in
Koothapadayachi''s case, 1998 (1) LW 301 and in Vasantha and others Vs. M. Senguttuvan, has held that the agreement- holder should prove his
readiness and willingness continuously from the date of agreement till the date of hearing.
As already observed, the agreement was entered into on 26.1.1977 and the agreement stipulates that the balance sale amount should be paid
within a period of three months. A part of sale consideration of Rs.20,000 was paid on 23.1.1978. There is no evidence to show as to what
happened subsequent to the part payment made on 23.1.1978 till the notice was issued by the defendants through their advocates on 28.12.1980
(Ex.A-3) calling upon the plaintiff to pay arrears of rent of the property for the months from February, 1980 to December, 1980. Meanwhile,
Chengammal passed away in 1978. The plaintiff issued a lawyer''s notice dated 7.1.1981 (Ex.A-4) stating that she is willing to pay balance of sale
consideration, and she instituted the suit on 12.1.1981. The trial Court, while granting interim injunction, imposed a condition that the plaintiff
should deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.26,000 in the Court on or before 22.4.1981 and the said order was passed on 31.3.1981.
The plaintiff did not deposit the money within the time stipulated by the Court. The plaintiff approached the trial Court for extension of time to
deposit the balance of sale consideration by seven days on the score that she has handed over the amount of Rs.26,000 to her parents residing at
their native place, Mysore, who in turn, lent the amount to their relatives. In the petition, she has also stated that she wrote to her parents to send
back the money and they made arrangements to collect and send the money. She has also stated that since she was laid up with fever taking
treatment, she could not go to the native place personally to collect the money and hence, she made arrangements to collect the money and to
deposit the same in the Court. The trial Court refused to extend the time for deposit of the balance of sale consideration.
Therefore, it is clear that from the year 1978 till the institution of the suit, the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of the
contract. She has not established that she was willing to perform her part of the contract within a reasonable time from the stipulated period. She
has not established that she was ready to pay or tender the balance of sale consideration and complete deed of sale after 1978. It is also relevant
to mention here that she fell in arrears in payment of rent. Another important aspect is that though the plaintiff need not produce the money in cash,
when the Court has directed that the plaintiff should deposit the balance of sale consideration in Court on or before a particular period, she should
have deposited the amount as per the direction of the Court. The fact that she has not deposited the balance of sale consideration within the period
directed by the Court clearly shows that she was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
In so far as Ex.A-5 is concerned, the account was opened only in May, 1981 with initial deposit of Rs.6,201 and except the deposit of small
amounts ranging from Rs.100 to Rs.400, substantial amount was deposited only on February 23, 1983. On the date of her examination in
February, 1984, she had a sum of Rs.6,013 only in the bank account. Though the sum of Rs.26,000 may not loom large now due to inflation in the
value of money, the said amount was the substantial amount in early 80s. If the amount of Rs.26,000 is not the substantial amount, there is no
explanation from the plaintiff why she did not deposit or pay the said sum after the last payment was made in the year 1978 or even after the
orders of the Court directing her to deposit the said money. The plaintiff has also admitted that she has not written any letter from 1977 till the date
of suit either to Chengammal or to the defendants with reference to the agreement for sale.
I am unable to accept the submission of Mr.N.S. Varadhachari, learned counsel for the respondent that the failure on the part of the plaintiff to
deposit the balance of sale consideration in compliance of the order of the Court for granting interim injunction should be overlooked as such
failure would result only in not securing the interim injunction as prayed for and that would not be a relevant circumstance to establish her readiness
and willingness to perform her part of the contract. It is no doubt true that the trial Court has directed the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.26,000
being the balance of sale consideration as a condition for grant of interim injunction and when the Court has directed the deposit of the balance of
sale consideration, the plaintiff should have complied with the directions of the Court and the inference to be drawn from her failure to do so is that
the plaintiff was not possessed of funds and she was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
This Court in Vasantha and others Vs. M. Senguttuvan, held that even if for a single day, plaintiff/agreement holder is not ready to take the sale
deed, the equitable remedy should not be granted. Applying the ratio of the case, the plaintiff has not shown her readiness and willingness from
1978 to 1981 and even after the filing of the suit, when the Court, at the stage of granting interim injunction, directed her to deposit the balance of
sale within the time granted which she failed and it clearly shows that the plaintiff did not have the necessary money to comply with the direction of
the Court and she was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The order of the trial Court refusing to extend the time for deposit
has become final. Further there is no evidence from the plaintiff that she was ready and willing to perform her part of agreement after the death of
Chengammal till the date of the suit notice in the year 1981. However, in the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that she has demanded the defendants
for the execution of sale deed informing that she was ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and complete the sale transaction.
The plaintiff has also not proved her statement that the defendants had promised her several times to complete the transaction but failed for the
reasons best known to them. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that even after the death of Chengammal, the second defendant
was demanding the plaintiff to complete the transaction, but the plaintiff was not ready to pay the balance of sale consideration and she requested
extension of time for payment. I hold that in a suit for specific performance, it is for plaintiff to establish his/her readiness and willingness from the
date of agreement till the date of sale. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not established that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the
contract. The plaintiff has also not established that she was running a handicraft business:she has not even stated the place of the business and what
was the turnover from the business. It is relevant to notice that she has not examined any of the employees, nor did she produce any document to
show that she was carrying on the handicraft business. Except her evidence, there is no independent evidence to show that her husband was an
Income Tax assessee and the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that her husband was an Income Tax assessee. I hold that from the
date the last payment of Rs.20,000 was made till the date of the suit, nearly for a period of three years, the plaintiff has not established that she was
ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and she was also not able to establish her readiness and willingness even after the institution of
the suit. The fact that she gave different versions regarding her failure to deposit the money ordered to be deposited clearly shows that she has not
come out with true facts.
The trial Court proceeded on the basis that the mere delay would not prevent the plaintiff from obtaining decree for specific performance. The
trial Court relied upon the decision of this Court in S.V. Sankaralinga Nadar Vs. P.T.S. Ratnaswami Nadar and Others, wherein this Court held
that mere rise in price is not a ground for denying the specific performance. However, the Supreme Court took a different view in the case of K.S.
Vidyanadam and Others Vs. Vairavan, wherein the Supreme Court, after noticing the decision in Sankaralinga Nadar''s case, held as under:-
With great respect, we are unable to agree if the said decision is understood as saying that the said factor is, not at all to be taken into account
while exercising the discretion vested in the Court by law. We cannot be oblivious to the reality - and the reality is constant and continuous rise in
the values of urban properties - fuelled by large scale migration of people from rural areas of urban centres and by inflation. Take this very case,
the plaintiff had agreed to pay the balance consideration, purchase the stamp papers and ask for the execution of sale deed and delivery of
possession within six months. He did nothing of the sort. The agreement expressly provides that if the plaintiff fails in performing his part of the
contract, the defendants are entitled to forfeit the earnest money of Rs.5,000 and that if the defendants fail to perform their part of the contract,
they are liable to pay double the said amount. Except paying the small amount of Rs.5,000 (as against the total consideration of Rs.60,000) the
plaintiff did nothing until he issued the suit notice 2 1/2 years after the agreement. Indeed, we are inclined to think that the rigor of the rule evolved
by courts that time is not of the essence of the contract in the case of immovable properties-evolved in times when prices and values were stable
and inflation was unknown requires to be relaxed, if not modified, particularly in the case of urban immovable properties. It is high time, we do so.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff says that when the parties entered into the contract, they knew that prices are rising hence, he says, rise in
prices cannot be a ground for denying specific performance. May be, the parties knew of the said circumstance but they have also specified six
months as the period within which the transaction should be completed. The said time-limit may not amount to making time the essence of the
contract but it must yet have some meaning. Not for nothing could such time- limit would have been prescribed. Can it be stated as a rule of law or
rule of prudence that where time is not made the essence of the contract, all stipulations of time provided in the contract have no significance or
meaning or that they are as good as non-existent ? All this only means that while exercising its discretion, the Court should also bear in mind that
when the parties prescribe certain time-limit(s) for taking steps by one or the other party, it must have some significance and that the said time-
limit(s) cannot be ignored altogether on the ground that time has not been made the essence of the contract (relating to immovable properties).
I am of the view that the complete inaction on the part of the plaintiff for a period of nearly three years coupled with the rise in the value of the
property should be taken into account in considering the question whether the relief of specific performance should be granted in favour of the
plaintiff or not. The trial Court completely ignored to take into account the effect of failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with the orders of
the Court to deposit the balance of sale consideration on the ground, the Court, u/s 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, after decreeing the suit for
specific performance, has the power to permit the purchaser to deposit the balance of sale consideration within a stipulated time and also to extend
the time subsequently. In my view, the power available u/s 28 of the Specific Relief Act is far different from considering the question whether the
plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
In my view, the mere assertion that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract is not sufficient when the averment was
denied. As observed by the Supreme Court, the mere compliance of the form is not sufficient and the spirit behind the section should be taken into
account. I hold that on the facts of the case, there was a specific direction by the Court to deposit the balance of sale consideration, though
ordered for some other purpose, the failure to deposit the balance of sale consideration as ordered by the Court within the time stipulated is a
relevant circumstance that should be taken into account in deciding the question whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of
the contract.
Further, the plaintiff, in the petition for extension of time, has stated that money was left with her parents residing in the native place, Mysore.
However, in the evidence, she has stated that she kept the money in the house and since there was no order of the Court to deposit the amount,
she could not deposit the money. During the course of cross-examination, she has also stated that she had a sum of Rs.20,000 in cash and she
gave the money to her father and she had kept the money in cash during December, 1981. In her chief-examination, she has stated that she was
directed to pay a sum of Rs.26,000 on or before 22.4.1981 and she filed a petition for extension of time by seven days, and due to her ill-health,
she was not able to deposit the money. At that point of time, at the request of the counsel for the plaintiff, the case was adjourned to next week.
Next week, the plaintiff was examined and she has stated that she was keeping the money in her house and since there was no order of the Court,
she could not deposit the money. In cross- examination, she has stated that when the suit was filed on 12.1.1981, she took along with her the
agreement and the bank passbook also. She has also admitted that she has only one bank account, viz., Ex.A-5. It is seen from Ex.A-5 that the
bank account was opened in May, 1981 and therefore, in my view, the statement of the plaintiff that the plaint was prepared on the basis of the
bank passbook is not correct, because the account was opened in May, 1981, subsequent to the filing of the suit. A careful reading of the
evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that she has given different versions and changed her version even during the course of her examination.
The trial Court was of the view that the seller has not produced the documents of title to the purchaser and hence, the plaintiff was unable to
perform her part of the contract. A careful reading of the agreement shows that the vendor was required to produce encumbrance certificate for
one year. The plaint and evidence of the plaintiff, on the other hand, show that as per the agreement the seller was required not only to produce
encumbrance certificate, but also title deeds relating to the suit property. However, I find that there is no such clause regarding handing over
documents of title to the plaintiff. The trial Court has proceeded on the basis that the vendor was required to hand over the documents of title to
the purchaser. The evidence of the plaintiff also shows that she has not written any letter to the defendants or their mother demanding production of
encumbrance certificate or documents of title. As a matter of fact, in the lawyer''s notice, Ex.A-4, there is no allegation regarding non-furnishing of
documents of title or encumbrance certificate. The only point that was raised in the notice was that the first defendant has not produced the power
of attorney executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant empowering her to collect the rent. Though such a stand was taken in
the notice dated 7.1.1981 (Ex.A-4), the plaintiff filed the suit against defendants 1 and 2 alone on the ground that they are legal heirs of
Chengammal. Further, it is also evident that even after the death of Chengammal, the plaintiff has been paying rent till January, 1980 to the first
defendant and at no point of time, she has raised a plea that the defendants are not legal representatives of late Chengammal or there are other
legal representatives besides the defendants. It is also relevant to notice that the plaintiff has admitted that she knew who are the legal heirs of the
deceased Chengammal and in spite of that, she has not taken any steps to enforce the agreement.
The trial Court was chiefly influenced by the statement of D.W.1 that in January, 1980, the plaintiff had stated that she was ready to complete
the sale. The trial Court relied upon that statement of D.W.1, but it is relevant to notice that the first defendant has also stated that the plaintiff was
not ready with money in January, 1980 and the plaintiff has not paid arrears of rent or balance of sale consideration. On the other hand, the plaintiff
has not let in any further evidence to show that she was ready to complete the sale transaction even in the month of January, 1980. The trial Court
proceeded on the basis that there is default on the part of the defendants to produce documents of title and encumbrance certificate as per
agreement for sale. As already observed by me, there is no requirement under the agreement for sale that the vendor should hand over title deeds
to the purchaser. There was no demand by the plaintiff for the inspection of title deeds.
In so far as encumbrance certificate is concerned, the vendor was required to produce encumbrance certificate for a period of one year from
September, 1976 on the date of execution of sale and that period also expired in September, 1977. I am of the view, the plaintiff has kept quiet,
because she was in possession of the suit property by paying rent for some time. After the death of Chengammal in 1978, the plaintiff fall in arrears
in payment of rent from January, 1980. Taking into account the overall view of the matter, I hold that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to
perform her part of the contract after the payment of Rs.20,000 in January, 1978. Though the said payment has indicated that she was ready at
that time, her subsequent conduct shows that she was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Further, she has also come forward
with conflicting versions both in the affidavit (Ex.B-4) and in the evidence regarding the availability of money of Rs.26,000. It is well settled by
various decisions of this Court that where the plaintiff has set up a false case, she is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. I hold that on
the vital and important aspect with reference to the deposit of balance of sale consideration, the plaintiff has not given true facts which disentitle the
plaintiff from claiming the relief of specific performance. The various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants on this aspect
do support the case of the appellants.
In so far as the decision of this Court in Guruswami Gounder Vs. Kesave Reddiar and Another, wherein it was held that it is not every
incorrect case pleaded by plaintiff that would disentitle her to claim the relief is distinguishable as in that case there was an alternative plea
expressing readiness and willingness to deposit entire sale consideration if earlier plea of part payment was not accepted and this Court held that it
would depend upon the facts of each case and there is no uniform standard or formula dealing with all matters. The above decision in Guruswami
Gounder''s case was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Pachaiappan and others v. S.P. Koon Mari, 1996 (2) LW 1.
However, on the facts of the present case, the false case set up by the plaintiff as on the material aspect and affects the main case on the
question whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Ultimately, it would depend upon the facts of each case
whether false case is material or immaterial and I hold that the plea put forward regarding the availability of the amount of balance of sale
consideration is a material consideration and hence, the ratio of the Division Bench of this- Court in Pachaiappan''s case, 1996 (2) LW 1 is not
applicable. I hold that the statement of the plaintiff in the plaint that she was ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and complete
the sale transaction cannot be stated to be true in view of her inability to comply with the orders of the Court to deposit the balance of sale
consideration. She has also not established that she was ready and willing to perform her part of agreement by paying the balance of sale
consideration to the defendants from 1978 to 1981 when the suit was instituted.
In the circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff has set up a false regarding her readiness and willingness and it is a material consideration to
consider the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance. I also hold that the fact that there is a change in the power
of attorney holder does not make any difference. Even assuming and for which there is no evidence that the defendants have subsequently entered
into an agreement for sale with the power of attorney holder of the legal heirs of K. Raghavachari, that will not entitle the plaintiff to the relief of
specific performance when there was a complete inaction on her part from 1978 to 1981 and during that period, she had not shown her readiness
and willingness to perform her part of the agreement.
I hold that the trial Court has exercised its discretion in granting the equitable relief not properly and erred in granting the relief which is not
warranted on the facts of the case. I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. The points 2 and 3 are answered in
favour of the appellants.
The result is the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and the suit shall stand dismissed. The
respondent will be entitled to the money paid by her. Since the money has been paid in the years 1977 and 1978, the appellants are directed to
return the amount received with 12% interest from the date of receipt till the date of payment. The appellant is entitled to costs herein.