Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2238 (MAD)

S. Ashok Kumar v. S. Subramaniam

2017-07-27

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant has preferred A.S.No.91 of 2010 and the 2nd defendant has preferred A.S.No.144 of 2010. 2. Since the issue involved in both the matters are one and the same, common judgment is being passed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court. 4. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows: (i) The 1st defendant, who is the owner of the suit property, entered into an agreement dated 28.12.2003, for sale of the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.5,65,775/- and received a sum of Rs.2,65,775/- towards advance. Time stipulated in the agreement for completion of the contract is three years. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ever since from 28.12.2003. The plaintiff also paid the balance sale consideration. When the plaintiff demanded to execute the sale deed, the 1st defendant in some way or other postponing the same. The 1st defendant informed that he had income tax problems and insisted the plaintiff to make further payments. Consequently, the plaintiff made payments to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- on various dates. Thereafter, the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was also paid. When the plaintiff insisted the 1st defendant to execute sale deed, the 1st defendant declined the same and informed that he has already sold the suit properties to the 2nd defendant. After verification, the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant executed two (2) sale deeds on 28.06.2004 in respect of the very same suit property, i.e., one for Rs.1,69,500/- and another for Rs.3,12,2000/-. (ii) According to the plaintiff, the sale deeds are not true and genuine and no consideration has been passed. The defendants colluded together and created the alleged sale deeds to defeat the interest of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 20.8.2007. The plaintiff also made paper publication in Dinamalar on 24.8.2007 warning the defendants 1 and 2 not to encumber the suit properties. The 1st defendant received the notice and denied the sale agreement and requested the plaintiff to send a xerox copy of the sale agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 20.8.2007. The plaintiff also made paper publication in Dinamalar on 24.8.2007 warning the defendants 1 and 2 not to encumber the suit properties. The 1st defendant received the notice and denied the sale agreement and requested the plaintiff to send a xerox copy of the sale agreement. The 1st defendant issued another notice to inspect the original. The 1st defendant is adopting dilatory tactics. The 2nd defendant issued a notice on 30.10.2007 seeking a copy of the aforesaid notice and on 06.11.2007, the plaintiff sent a copy of the aforesaid notice. The plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance sale price and take the sale deed. During trial, the 3rd defendant has purchased the suit properties, which is hit by lis pendens. Hence, the plaintiff seeks for specific performance and in the alternative, refund of advance amount with interest at 12% per annum and costs. (iii) The 1st defendant has filed the written statement stating that he is the owner of the property. He denied the execution of the alleged agreement with the plaintiff. It is stated by the 1st defendant that the plaintiff created the sale agreement in order to grab the suit property. He denied the statement made by the plaintiff that he has been continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is not admitted that the plaintiff postponed his part of the contract. In fact, the plaintiff in order to blackmail the 1st defendant, prepared the agreement and made endorsements. It is contended that the plaintiff is running a chit company in the name of “Rahukumar Chits Promoters (P) Limited, Saravana Chits, Dhanalakshmi Finance, Perundurai Financier and Chit Promoters. The 1st defendant participated in the chit and become the subscriber during 1990 to 2000. The plaintiff is also doing real estate business. (iv) It is contended that the plaintiff was acting as a broker for the purchase of the suit property by the 1st defendant. For formation of four roads, the properties abutting the road were acquired for which publication was also made in the dailies. Thereafter only, the 1st defendant sold the properties to the 2nd defendant for valuable consideration and put him in possession. After sale, notice was served upon the 2nd defendant, who, being a bonafide purchaser. For formation of four roads, the properties abutting the road were acquired for which publication was also made in the dailies. Thereafter only, the 1st defendant sold the properties to the 2nd defendant for valuable consideration and put him in possession. After sale, notice was served upon the 2nd defendant, who, being a bonafide purchaser. The plaintiff, who obtained signatures of the 1st defendant towards Security during chit transactions, used the stamp papers and created forged suit agreement. The 1st defendant is a stranger to the suit property. Since the 2nd defendant sold the property to one Ashok Kumar on 16.11.2007, he is the necessary party to the suit for proper adjudication. But he has not been impleaded in the suit and hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. (v) In the additional written statement, it is the contention of the 1st defendant that apart from forging the suit agreement, the plaintiff has also fabricated another agreement dated 30.5.2001 in the name of his wife in respect of another property and filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2008. The plaintiff is a wrong doer, who created the fabricated agreements utilising the old stamp papers and filed the present suit. (vi) The 2nd defendant has filed the written statement denying the agreement. It is contended that he is the boanfide purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration and he has purchased the property after verifying the encumbrance of the properties and the portion of the properties were acquired by the National Highways Department and that the 2nd defendant was served with notice during the acquisition proceedings. Hence, it is the contention of the 2nd defendant that the purchase and the possession of the 2nd defendant is well known to the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant also sold the properties to one Ashok Kumar on 16.11.2007 and since he has not been impleaded, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. (vii) In the additional written statement, the 2nd defendant has contended that he is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. The 2nd defendant also sold the properties to one Ashok Kumar on 16.11.2007 and since he has not been impleaded, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. (vii) In the additional written statement, the 2nd defendant has contended that he is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. Subsequent to the filing of the written statement, the 1st defendant did not chose to fulfil the legal obligations and kept himself away from appearing before the court to allow the suit in ex parte, thereby causing serious prejudice to the other defendants. On account of escalation in price, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant colluded together and filed the present suit. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the suit. (viii) It is the case of the 3rd defendant that the agreement dated 28.12.2003 is false. It is false to say that the plaintiff has been ready and willing and the 1st defendant has been postponing the performance of the contract. It is denied that the plaintiff made several payments on various dates. The 1st defendant never entered into any sale agreement with the plaintiff. The suit agreement is a forged one. The 2nd defendant has purchased the property for valuable consideration in good faith and, therefore, the 2nd defendant is the bonafide purchaser. The 3rd defendant purchased the suit property for proper and valuable consideration. Due to escalation in price, the 1st defendant instigated the plaintiff to file the present suit. (ix) In the reply statement, the plaintiff denied the entire allegations contained in the additional written statement filed by the 2nd defendant. It is denied that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant have colluded together to defeat the claims of other defendants. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have colluded together and drag on the proceedings endlessly. Hence, the plaintiff reiterates that he is entitled to the primary relief of specific performance of the sale agreement. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the suit sale agreement dated 28.12.2003 is valid and genuine under law? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of advance amount as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to charge over the suit property? 5. Whether the suit sale agreement dated 28.12.2003 is valid and genuine under law? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of advance amount as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to charge over the suit property? 5. Whether the plaintiff obtained the signature of the 1st defendant in blank papers and fabricated the suit agreement? 6. To what other relief? 5.1. The following additional issues were also framed by the Trial Court: Whether the 2nd defendant is not a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice? 6. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked. 7. The Trial Court, after analysing the entire evidence on record, has decreed the suit for specific performance. Aggrieved over the same, the 3rd defendant has filed AS.No.91 of 2010 and the 2nd defendant has filed A.S.No.144 of 2010. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.91 of 2010/3rd defendant has submitted that the Stamp Paper Ex.A1 was purchased in the year 1995 whereas the agreement is said to have been executed on 28.12.2003. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the 2nd defendant has purchased the property in the year 2004 itself. Thereafter the property was sold to the 3rd defendant on 16.11.2007. The suit has been filed on 14.11.2007. It is further contended that all the endorsements made subsequent to the payment in the agreement is highly doubtful. In fact, after purchase by the 2nd defendant, a portion of the properties was acquired by the National Highways Authority and only the 2nd defendant was served with notice. The plaintiff having known all these facts kept quite till the filing of the suit in the year 2007. It is further contended by the learned counsel that merely because the plaintiff has examined the interested witnesses on his side, that cannot be a ground to infer the genuineness of Ex.A1 document. The plaintiff has not only established the genuineness of sale agreement but he has also failed to establish his readiness and willingness from the very beginning till the end. The plaintiff has not only established the genuineness of sale agreement but he has also failed to establish his readiness and willingness from the very beginning till the end. It is also submitted that the conduct of the plaintiff itself clearly shows that he is not ready and willing to perform the alleged contract. Further Ex.A1 is shrouded with serious doubt. Merely because the 1st defendant remained ex parte, the learned trial Judge has held that he supported the case of the 2nd defendant, which is not on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence. Hence, it is submitted that Ex.A1 cannot be enforced in the eye of law as the same is shrouded with serious doubt. Thus, the learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff in both appeals vehemently contended that the defendants 1 and 2 are known to each other and, therefore, the 2nd defendant cannot be said to be a bonafide purchaser for value. Whereas the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 not only proved the execution of the agreement but also proved the subsequent payment made by the plaintiff. The manner in which the payments were made by the plaintiff would clearly show that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Besides thump impression was also obtained by the 1st defendant in the alleged agreement. The witnesses have also clearly spoken about the execution of document as well as reception of consideration. Hence, it is submitted that the plaintiff has not only proved the genuineness of agreement but he has also proved his readiness and willingness from the very inception. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 10. In the light of the above submissions, the points for consideration in these appeals are: 1. Whether Ex.A1 agreement dated 28.12.2003 is genuine and enforced for specific performance. 2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? Point Nos. 1 and 2: 11. The suit has been laid to enforce the contract said to have been executed by the 1st defendant on 28.12.2003 for the total sale consideration of Rs.5,66,550/-. Admittedly, the 1st defendant remained ex parte before the Trial Court. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd defendant has purchased the property on 28.06.2004 itself. 1 and 2: 11. The suit has been laid to enforce the contract said to have been executed by the 1st defendant on 28.12.2003 for the total sale consideration of Rs.5,66,550/-. Admittedly, the 1st defendant remained ex parte before the Trial Court. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd defendant has purchased the property on 28.06.2004 itself. Similarly it is also not in dispute that the property was once again transferred to the 3rd defendant during the pendency of the suit. 12. In the above admitted facts, when the pleadings of the plaintiff are carefully analysed, it is seen that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant, being the owner of the property, has agreed to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs.5,65,775/- and he received a sum of Rs.2,65,775/- towards advance. Even though three years time has been stipulated for completion of sale, immediately, after execution of the sale agreement, the 1st defendant has also received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on various dates, i.e., 16.05.2004, 06.2.2005, 24.01.2006, 26.12.2006. Thereafter, he has evaded to execute the sale deed and also sold the property to the 2nd defendant and hence, the 2nd defendant is not a bonafide purchaser for value. Since the 3rd defendant has purchased the same during the pendency of the suit, the same is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. 13. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant colluded with other defendants and sold the property to them amounting to breach of valid contract executed by him. The 1st defendant has filed the written statement denying the execution of agreement and also stated that there were transactions between himself and the plaintiff during the year 1996 and 2000 and at that time, the plaintiff has obtained several blank signatures as a security for such chit transactions and that the same has been utilised for creating the alleged sale agreement. The defendants 2 and 3 would contend that they are the bonafide purchasers of the suit properties. 14. In this background, when Ex.A1 is carefully read, it is seen that in the said agreement, which is said to have been written by one P.Gopalakrishnan, a document writer, and entered into between the parties on 28.12.2003 for a total consideration of Rs.5,65,775/-, the total land agreed to be sold is 16.16.1/2 acres. 14. In this background, when Ex.A1 is carefully read, it is seen that in the said agreement, which is said to have been written by one P.Gopalakrishnan, a document writer, and entered into between the parties on 28.12.2003 for a total consideration of Rs.5,65,775/-, the total land agreed to be sold is 16.16.1/2 acres. It is also pertinent to note that the said Gopalakrishnan was also examined before the Court (P.W.3). 15. On a perusal of the entire recitals in the agreement, it is clear that three (3) years time is stipulated to complete the sale transaction from 28.12.2003. Further, subsequent to the date of agreement, sum of Rs.2,50,000/-said to have been paid by the plaintiff, which is evident from Exs. A2, A3, A4 and A5, endorsements. 16. It is to be noted that initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the agreement. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined. P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated about the execution, subsequent payments as well as readiness and willingness etc. In the cross examination, P.W.1 has stated that the 1st defendant was known him and that the 1st defendant was also a subscriber in his chit fund business. Further, P.W.1, in the cross examination, has stated that three years time has been given to set right the encumbrance in the property. His evidence would also clearly show that similar agreement has also been entered by the 1st defendant in the name his wife. His evidence would further show that a portion of the properties has already been acquired by the Highways Department. He has deposed that he is not aware whether the 2nd defendant was paid any amount by the Highways Department for such acquisition. The entire evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that during the course of chit business, he used to obtain security from the 3rd party. In the entire cross examination, P.W.1 has stated that on the date of agreement itself, he had the entire sale consideration. However, he has not insisted for executing the sale deed on the same day. He has admitted in the cross examination that he never verified the encumbrance certificate in respect of the properties. In the entire cross examination, P.W.1 has stated that on the date of agreement itself, he had the entire sale consideration. However, he has not insisted for executing the sale deed on the same day. He has admitted in the cross examination that he never verified the encumbrance certificate in respect of the properties. The evidence of P.W.1 would clearly indicate that he is aware of the fact that the 2nd defendant received the compensation amount towards land acquisition and thereafter only, he has sent a legal notice. 17. It is to be noted that the person, who interested in purchasing the suit property, would normally verify the title deeds to set right the encumbrance and if he found any encumbrance over the suit property, definitely he would approach the purchaser for clearing the same. In the cross examination, P.W.1, has stated that even after receipt of subsequent payments on several occasions, the 1st defendant refused to execute the sale deed. Though P.W.1 suspected that something fishy in the transaction, he did not chose to verify the encumbrance and this conduct of P.W.1 is against the normal human conduct and the same itself clearly indicate that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to purchase the property. Readiness virtually means, capacity to raise funds. Willingness is a mental attitude. Only when both the ingredients have been established, the person, who, seeks equitable relief, can succeed in the court of law. 18. The plaintiff has examined P.W.2 to P.W.5 to prove the agreement as well as the subsequent payments alleged to have been made. P.W.2 one Subramani, in his evidence, has stated that he was present at the time of agreement. He has further stated that on 16.5.2004, the 1st defendant again received another sum of Rs.60,000/-. He has also stated that on both occasion, he was present. P.W.2 has categorically admitted in the cross examination that stamp papers were purchased on the same day i.e. on the date of agreement. This positive assertion made by P.W.2 is falsified by Ex.A1, agreement. Ex.A1, agreement, in fact, shows that the stamp papers were purchased in the year 1995. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to execution and signing of document by the 1st defendant is highly doubtful. 19. It is further to be noted that P.W.2 is the close relative of P.W.1. Ex.A1, agreement, in fact, shows that the stamp papers were purchased in the year 1995. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to execution and signing of document by the 1st defendant is highly doubtful. 19. It is further to be noted that P.W.2 is the close relative of P.W.1. Further, his evidence that stamp papers were purchased on the same day is also doubtful in view of the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3, who is said to be the document writer, in his evidence, has stated that he prepared the document as well as subsequent endorsements and obtained signatures. In the cross examination, he has stated that one day prior to the date of agreement, the 1st defendant has given 10 stamp papers for preparation of the agreement. This evidence of P.W.3 is totally contradictory to the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2, who claims to be the witness to the agreement, has stated that stamp papers were purchased on the same day i.e. on the date of execution of agreement, whereas P.W.3, document writer, who prepared the document and endorsement, in his evidence, has stated that one day prior to the agreement, the 1st defendant came to his office and gave the stamp papers. His evidence is not only contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 but the same is falsified on seeing the document Ex.A1. Admittedly, Ex.A1 is drafted on four Five Rupees stamp papers and three green sheets. Totally seven (7) papers have been used for drafting the same. Whereas P.W.3, in his evidence, has stated that ten stamp papers were given to him by the 1st defendant for preparation of the alleged agreement. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is also highly doubtful. Similarly, in the cross examination, he has stated that only at the time of agreement, stamp papers were given. P.W.3 has also stated in his evidence that another agreement in the name of the 1st defendant's wife has also been prepared by him. This evidence also creates serious doubt about the execution of the documents. 20. It is curious to note that in the agreement, no thump impression, whatsoever, has been obtained at the time of execution. Only at the time of making endorsement, Exs.A2 to Ex.A5, thump impression of the parties were obtained. There was no reason, whatsoever, given by P.W.3 for obtaining thump impression only in two sheets. 20. It is curious to note that in the agreement, no thump impression, whatsoever, has been obtained at the time of execution. Only at the time of making endorsement, Exs.A2 to Ex.A5, thump impression of the parties were obtained. There was no reason, whatsoever, given by P.W.3 for obtaining thump impression only in two sheets. The normal conduct of the parties would be to get signature and thump impression in all the pages. In this case, only in two pages, thump impression has been obtained in order to meet out the limitation period. 21. According to the plaintiff, he has paid almost 95% of the sale consideration and remaining 5% alone to be paid, from the date of agreement till 2000,i.e. within the stipulated period of three years. That being the case, normal conduct of the person would be atleast to verify the encumbrance to know the status of the properties. But the plaintiff has not done so. This aspect would create serious doubt about the genuineness of the agreement. P.W.4, has been examined to prove one of the endorsement made on 06.02.2005 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. His evidence would go to show that he has signed the document only as a witness at the writer's office. His evidence would also show that no consideration was paid on the date of the alleged endorsement dated 06.02.2005. It is specifically admitted by him that the 1st defendant has not received any amount at the relevant time. Therefore, merely because some witnesses have been examined to prove the signature, that itself is not sufficient to prove the execution as well as consideration. The subsequent payment allegedly made as well as the manner in which the endorsement was made in various dates, i.e., within three years from the date of agreement creates serious doubt about the execution of document. In fact, the same would fortify the defence taken by the 1st defendant that several blank signatures obtained from him was misused by the plaintiff. This inference is possible due to serious contradiction between the plaintiff's side witnesses. 22. More so, P.W.5, in his evidence, would depose that on 26.12.2006, he was present and that the 1st defendant received a sum of Rs.90,000/-from the plaintiff and thereafter the agreement was extended till 27.06.2008. This inference is possible due to serious contradiction between the plaintiff's side witnesses. 22. More so, P.W.5, in his evidence, would depose that on 26.12.2006, he was present and that the 1st defendant received a sum of Rs.90,000/-from the plaintiff and thereafter the agreement was extended till 27.06.2008. He has further stated in his evidence that he does not know about the presence of other witnesses at the relevant time and he knew the plaintiff during chit transaction. These facts also creates serious doubt about the endorsement said to have been made. 23. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. His evidence, would show that he entertained doubt about the 1st defendant's character since, he is unnecessarily delaying the transaction and he is also aware of the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the property, which has already been transferred to the 2nd defendant. Even thereafter, the plaintiff has not taken any steps against the 1st defendant till he approached the Court, except sending a legal notice. Therefore, the possibility of creating antedate agreement cannot be ruled out as it is evident that the stamp papers were purchased in the year 1995 whereas the alleged agreement was entered in the year 2003. No prudent man would prepare the agreement for sale of the property in the stamp paper, which was purchased in the year 1995. The normal conduct would be to verify the date of purchase of stamp paper and the value of the same before entrusting the paper for writing such agreement. Whereas, preparing the alleged agreement in the papers said to have been supplied by the 1st defendant, which is of the year 1995, is highly improbable one. This fact, in fact, creates serious doubt about the execution of agreement as alleged in the plaint. 24. The aforesaid conduct of the plaintiff clearly probabilise the defence theory that the blank signatures, which were obtained during chit transaction between the the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, have been utilised for preparing the forged agreement. Such inference is also possible in view of the conduct of the plaintiff in accepting the stamp papers purchased by the vendor, as there was no reason for him to accept same. Such inference is also possible in view of the conduct of the plaintiff in accepting the stamp papers purchased by the vendor, as there was no reason for him to accept same. As stated a above, no prudent man would use the stamp papers of the year 1995 for preparing the document in the year 2003. This conduct, in fact, is against the normal human conduct. Therefore, this Court, taking into consideration all these facts, is forced to presume that Ex.A1 has been created with antedate only to non suit the subsequent sale deed. 25. Similarly, the conduct of the plaintiff from the alleged date of agreement is also relevant to assess the readiness and willingness. Even assuming that Ex.A1 is proved in the manner known to law in view of the oral evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff, that itself is not sufficient to grant equitable relief of specific performance as the person, who is purchasing 16.16 = acres of land, waiting for three years to complete the agreement is against the normal human conduct. Similarly, having paid the advance amount of Rs.2,65,775/- on the date of agreement, the plaintiff has not even chosen to verify the encumbrance as well as the title deed. All these facts would clearly show that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the very beginning. P.W.1's evidence would also show that on the date of agreement itself, he had the entire sale consideration. That being the case, waiting for three years and extending further time of two years for completing the sale transaction would show that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the very beginning. Therefore, merely because legal notice was sent by him subsequently, that itself cannot be a ground to infer readiness and willingness. 26. D.W.1, (2nd defendant) in fact, has purchased the property in the year 2004. His evidence would clearly show that he has also verified the title deeds. Merely because the defendants 1 and 2 are known to each other, collusion cannot be inferred. In any event, it is for the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the agreement for getting equitable relief. His evidence would clearly show that he has also verified the title deeds. Merely because the defendants 1 and 2 are known to each other, collusion cannot be inferred. In any event, it is for the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the agreement for getting equitable relief. The suit has been laid in the year 2007, much after purchase by the 2nd defendant in the year 2004, i.e. three years after purchase by the 2nd defendant. The conduct of the plaintiff in keeping silent from the date of agreement and suddenly sending a legal notice in the year 2007 and approaching the Court on 14.11.2007 itself shows that he is not ready and willing to purchase the property. 27. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture, that readiness and willingness is the continuous process. It should be present from the date of the agreement till the transaction is completed. At every stage, the plaintiff should show his readiness and willingness. The conduct of the plaintiff as stated supra would prove that he has not shown his readiness and willingness continuously. Hence, this Court, considering the entire evidence and the nature of the agreement, is of the view that the judgment of the Trial Court is not based on proper appreciation of evidence, when Ex.A1 is shrouded with serious doubt. Hence, the judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with. 28. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that since Ex.A1 is doubtful, the same cannot be enforced in the court of law. The issue whether the 3rd defendant is the bonafide purchaser or not is not an issue in view of the finding of this Court that Ex.A1 has not been proved by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the captioned appeals are allowed and the judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Erode, in O.S.No.324 of 2007 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.