Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2352 (MAD)

Abirami v. Chinnathayammal

2019-09-12

T.RAVINDRAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.155 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No.1, Salem.) 1. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.155 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No.1, Salem, the defendant has come forward with the first appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for specific performance. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit property belongs to the defendant and the defendant intended to sell the same and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as advance on 20.09.2007 and the terms of the agreement were reduced into writing and signed both by the plaintiff and the defendant in the presence of the witnesses and it was agreed that the plaintiff will have to take the sale within 15 days from the date of the agreement by paying the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff was ready, willing and able to purchase the property by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- and the defendant also agreed to come to the Registrar Office on 04.10.2007 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration. Though the plaintiff was waiting at the Registrar Office till evening on 04.10.2007, the defendant had not turned up and immediately, the plaintiff issued a lawyer notice to the defendant calling upon her to inform a convenient date within two days for registration of the sale in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant issued a reply on 09.10.2007 as though she was ready but falsely alleged that the plaintiff has given evasive replies and the allegations contained in the reply notice are false and not accepted by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff, with no other alternative, has come forward with the suit for the appropriate relief. 5. Hence, the plaintiff, with no other alternative, has come forward with the suit for the appropriate relief. 5. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and stated that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and the defendant had insisted that the plaintiff should make the entire payment at a stretch towards the sale consideration. However, as the plaintiff was not in a position to purchase the property at a huge cost and she was not having enough money for effecting the same in her favour by paying the sale consideration and the plaintiff was able to collect only a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- instead of the said sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and when the crucial date was fixed on 20.09.2007 to effect the sale in favour of the plaintiff and even though the defendant refused to take the portion of the amount and never intended to execute the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff, it was informed by the plaintiff that as the date was inauspicious for making the entire payment and to execute the sale in her favour, sentimentally, she requested time till Monday (24.09.2007) for paying the balance amount and instead of the receipt, the plaintiff technically insisted and obtained sale agreement by completing and forcing the defendant to sign the papers and the defendant never intended to execute any agreement of sale and subsequently, the defendant came to know the habit and tactics of the plaintiff, the agreement of sale was prepared by her without the consent of the defendant and the defendant refused to receive the part amount of the sale consideration and execute the agreement of sale and the defendant believing the words of the plaintiff that she would pay the remaining amount on 24.09.2007 without fail, a formal agreement of sale was effected and time was fixed as 15 days to pay the remaining sale price and to effect the sale in favour of the plaintiff. Time for agreement of sale was essence of the contract and on 24.09.2007, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to pay the balance amount and the plaintiff informed that she has no amount and making arrangements to pay the amount and on 27.09.2007, the defendant sent one Duraisamy of Iyyamparrumpatty to the plaintiff's house to perform her part of the contract but no fruitful reply has been given, again on 29.08.2007, the defendant sent another person Jagadessan to the plaintiff's house but no proper reply and finally on 02.10.2007, the defendant with her husband Ranganathan along with one Iyyavoo met the plaintiff at her residence and informed about the delay in taking up the sale deed and making the balance sale price and no fruitful reply was given by the plaintiff. However, the defendant and two others informed the plaintiff ultimately for making the remaining sale consideration on 04.10.2007 and failing which, the sale agreement dated 20.09.2007 would automatically come to an end and lapse on 04.10.2007. Despite the reminders and information by the defendant, the plaintiff has not cared and never shown interest and willingness to pay the balance sale price and take up the sale deed in her favour and failed to perform her part of the contract and time is essence of the contract and the same has been informed to the plaintiff even on 04.10.2007 itself. By suppressing the real facts, the plaintiff sent a registered notice dated 04.10.2007 posted on 05.10.2007 and received by the defendant on 06.10.2007, containing false particulars and it is false to allege that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement and it is false to state that the defendant agreed to come to the Registrar office on 04.10.2007 to take the balance sale price and execute the sale deed as put forth in the plaint. The defendant never informed about her presence at the Registrar office as stated in the plaint and it is false to state that the plaintiff was present at the Registrar office till the evening on 04.10.2007. The sale agreement has become invalid after 05.10.2007 and the defendant has every right to sell the suit property to anyone and the plaintiff's right under the sale agreement had been refused. The sale agreement has become invalid after 05.10.2007 and the defendant has every right to sell the suit property to anyone and the plaintiff's right under the sale agreement had been refused. The defendant sent a detailed reply through her advocate on 09.10.2007 and there is no merit in the case and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the abovesaid pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for consideration: “(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance of as prayed for? (ii). What relief of the plaintiff is entitled? (iii). Cost and other reliefs?” 7. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DWs1 & 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present first appeal has been preferred. 9. The following points arise for consideration in the first appeal: “(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the relief of specific performance in respect of the agreement of sale on 20.09.2007? (ii). Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract as stipulated in the agreement of sale dated 20.09.2007? (iii). To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? (iv). To what relief the defendant/appellant is entitled to?” 10. Point Nos.1 & 2 The plaintiff has levied the suit against the defendant seeking the relief of specific performance in respect of the sale agreement dated 20.09.2007 marked as Ex.A1. As could be seen from the terms contained in Ex.A1 sale agreement, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and also received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of the sale agreement i.e. on 20.09.2007 and it is further noted that both the parties had agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- should be paid within 15 days from the date of the sale agreement and the sale transaction should be completed. Though the defendant would put forth the pleas in the written statement that as if she is not a willing member to the above execution of the abovesaid sale agreement and that the same had been obtained from her by using compulsion and force on the part of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has not been possessed of sufficient funds to complete the sale transaction by tendering the sale consideration fixed by the parties on the date of the sale agreement and she had been misled in the execution of the sale agreement etc., the fact remains that the defendant, during the course of her evidence as well as on an appreciation of the entire recitals contained in the written statement, is found to be a willing party to the terms entered into by the parties for the sale of the suit properties and accordingly, had executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff marked as Ex.A1. 11. The time fixed under the sale agreement Ex.A1 for the completion of the sale transaction is 15 days and it is seen that the abovesaid time expires on 04.10.2007. Now, according to the plaintiff, she has been always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and obtain the sale deed and further, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had agreed to come to the Registrar office on 04.10.2007 and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration and further, according to the plaintiff, though she was waiting at the Registrar's office on 04.10.2007 till evening, the defendant did not turn up and hence, it is put forth on her part that she had immediately sent the legal notice on 04.10.2007 to the defendant to fix a date within two days for the registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The legal notice issued by the plaintiff dated 04.10.2007 has been marked as Ex.A2. The defendant has not refused the acknowledgement of Ex.A2 and in fact, it is found that the defendant has issued a reply to the same on 09.10.2007 marked as Ex.A4. To substantiate her claim that she had been waiting the Registrar's office on 04.10.2007 till evening and that the defendant had not turned up as promised, the plaintiff has tendered evidence as PW1 and her son has also tendered evidence on similar lines as PW2. To substantiate her claim that she had been waiting the Registrar's office on 04.10.2007 till evening and that the defendant had not turned up as promised, the plaintiff has tendered evidence as PW1 and her son has also tendered evidence on similar lines as PW2. Though the defendant, in the written statement, had disputed the abovesaid case of the plaintiff, however the fact remains that the abovesaid evidence tendered by PWs 1 & 2 with reference to the same, during the course of chief examination, has not been suggested to be a false case by the defendant, while cross examining PWs1 & 2 and no suggestion had been put by the defendant contending that the plaintiff and her son had not been waiting in the Registrar's office on 04.07.2007 till evening for the completion of the sale transaction. No doubt, other than the oral evidence of PWs1 & 2, there is no other material on the part of the plaintiff to evidence that she and her son had been waiting in the Registrar's office on 04.07.2007 till evening for the purpose of accomplishing the sale transaction. However, the fact remains that on noting the failure of the defendant to come forward to execute the sale deed in her favour on 04.10.2007, immediately, it is seen that the plaintiff had issued the legal notice on the same date marked as Ex.A2. No doubt, from the evidence adduced in the matter, Ex.A2 is found to have been posted only on 05.10.2007 but as rightly contended by the plaintiff's counsel, considering the factual matrix that the plaintiff had been, as per her case, necessitated to remain in the Registrar's office till the evening and she should have only thereafter consulted her lawyer and prepared the legal notice on 04.10.2007 and would have posted the same on the next day i.e. on 05.10.2007. Therefore, on a reading of the abovesaid case of the plaintiff, in toto, it is found that as determined by the trial Court, the plaintiff through her evidence and the evidence of her son PW2 has to established that they had been waiting in the Registrar's office on 04.10.2007 for completing the sale transaction pursuant to the sale agreement Ex.A1. 12. 12. On a reading of the pleas set out in the written statement, though the defendant would aver that she had been sending her men to the plaintiff and insisting upon her to pay the balance sum and complete the sale transaction even prior to 04.10.2007 and the plaintiff is not having sufficient amount with reference to the same and only giving evasive replies, however, with reference to the abovesaid case projected by the defendant, there is no acceptable and reliable material as such. No doubt, the defendant has examined one Duraisamy as DW2, who has also claimed that he had met the plaintiff on 27.09.2007 and requested her to pay the balance sum and complete the sale transaction and that the plaintiff has expressed her inability to raise the funds and directed him to apprise the same to the defendant. If really the plaintiff had been not responding properly to the defendant and her men in paying the balance sale consideration and completing the sale transaction prior to 04.10.2007 nothing prevented the defendant from pointing to the abovesaid facts by issuing a notice to the plaintiff with reference to the same. However, even as per the written pleas, the defendant had informed the plaintiff about the payment of the balance sale consideration on 04.10.2007 and that on the failure of the plaintiff, the sale agreement would get terminated on 04.10.2007. Accordingly, it is found that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the abovesaid case of the defendant is acceptable, it is found that the plaintiff and the defendant had been meeting now and then, pursuant to the execution of the sale agreement for the purpose of accomplishing the sale transaction one way or the other, each party reiterating their own case as put forth by them with reference to the same. Accordingly, it is found that both the parties are cautious that the balance amount should be paid on or before 04.10.2007 and the sale transaction should be completed. Accordingly, it is found that both the parties are cautious that the balance amount should be paid on or before 04.10.2007 and the sale transaction should be completed. Accordingly, it is put forth by the plaintiff that the defendant had agreed to come to the Registrar's Office on 04.10.2007 and receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed and thus, it is put forth by the plaintiff that she and her son had been waiting in the Registrar's office on 04.10.2007 till the evening and as the defendant had failed to turn up as promised, it is found that the plaintiff had been necessitated to issue the legal notice immediately on 04.10.2007 itself. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence adduced by the respective parties with reference to the abovesaid facts and determined that the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and accordingly, had also been waiting at the Registrar's office on 04.10.2007 and as the defendant did not turn up to complete the sale transaction noting that the plaintiff has issued the legal notice on the same date on the whole, determined that the plaintiff has exhibited her readiness and willingness thereto from the date of the sale agreement, in my considered opinion, I do not find any valid reason to deviate from the abovesaid determination of the trial Court, particularly, when there is no material on the part of the defendant to disbelieve the abovesaid case of the plaintiff as projected by PWs1 & 2. 13. The plaintiff by way of Ex.A2 notice had called upon the defendant to immediately fix a date within two days from the receipt of the notice for completing the sale transaction, failing which, she would be necessitated to file the suit for specific performance. As the abovesaid request of the plaintiff had been not heeded to by the defendant and refuted by way of a notice marked as Ex.A4, the reply notice having been sent on 09.10.2007, thereafter, it is found that the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit and laid the suit on 24.10.2007. Therefore, it is seen that the plaintiff has levied the suit immediately after the receipt of the reply notice from the defendant and there is no delay on the part of the plaintiff in laying the suit for obtaining the relief of specific performance. Therefore, it is seen that the plaintiff has levied the suit immediately after the receipt of the reply notice from the defendant and there is no delay on the part of the plaintiff in laying the suit for obtaining the relief of specific performance. It is thus seen that the plaintiff has levied the suit within 20 days from the time fixed under the sale agreement for completing the sale transaction i.e. on 04.10.2007. 14. The main argument put forth by the defendant's counsel is that the plaintiff has failed to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court as per the terms of the sale agreement and on that score alone, according to him, the plaintiff's case is to be thrown out. In this connection, he relied upon the terms of the sale agreement Ex.A1. No doubt, as per the terms of the sale agreement Ex.A1, it is found that in the case of failure of the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff and execute the sale deed, the agreement recites that the plaintiff is entitled to deposit the balance sale consideration in the civil Court on the strength of the sale agreement and endeavour to obtain the sale deed and possession through the Court process. Relying on that part of the recitals contained in Ex.A1 sale agreement, the defendant's Counsel contended that as the plaintiff had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration and the plaintiff had not deposited the balance sale consideration on account of her inability to raise the funds, on that score alone, urged the Court, that the plaintiff's suit should have been rejected. In this connection, he placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court reported in LAWS (MAD)-2009-11-454 equivalent to 2010 (2) MLJ 253 (R.Rajaram Vs. T.R.Maheswaran) and 2014 (4) CTC 330 (P.Samiappan and another Vs. Rukmani (died) and others). Further, he also relied upon the decision of the apex Court reported in 2006-4-L.W.959 (Sugani Vs.Rameshwar Das & another) for the proposition that the plaintiff seeking the relief of specific performance should manifest and establish the same through his conduct for entitling him/her to the relief and therefore, according to him, only on the basis of the conduct of the person seeking the relief, he/she would be entitled to secure the same. However, as abovenoted, when from the evidence of PWs1 & 2, the plaintiff has manifested her readiness and willingness to complete the sale transaction within the time stipulated under the agreement and also had been found to be waiting at the Registrar's office on 04.10.2007 till evening and on knowing that the defendant had failed to turn up, immediately had sent the legal notice as above pointed out. 15. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the failure of the plaintiff in depositing the balance sale consideration would be the basis for holding that she has not been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. No doubt, the decisions relied upon by the defendant's counsel abovestated have been determined on similar pleas, however on a reading of the abovesaid decisions, it is found that the abovesaid decisions have been rendered on the peculiar facts and circumstances involved therein. In any event, in so far as the decision relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel, reported in LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-454 equivalent to 2010 (2) MLJ 253 (R.Rajaram Vs. T.R.Maheswaran), the abovesaid decision has come to be considered by this Court in another decision reported in 2011 (3) MWN (Civil) 559 (Adilingam and another Vs. In any event, in so far as the decision relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel, reported in LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-454 equivalent to 2010 (2) MLJ 253 (R.Rajaram Vs. T.R.Maheswaran), the abovesaid decision has come to be considered by this Court in another decision reported in 2011 (3) MWN (Civil) 559 (Adilingam and another Vs. Narayanan and seven others), wherein, this Court has, after adverting to the provisions of Section 16 (c) and the explanation attached to the same in the Specific Relief Act, accordingly, determined that 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, as the abovesaid provisions of law, specifically say that there is no necessity on the part of the plaintiff, who sues for specific performance, to deposit the amount into the court and based on the abvoesaid determination held that any agreement entered into the parties contrary to the same, would amount to an agreement against the statute and accordingly, held that even though there is a clause in the agreement of sale that the party, who applies for specific performance has to deposit the amount in Court, there is no necessity on the part of the said party to deposit the amount and if he is capable of proving that he got the means to pay the balance sale consideration, that is sufficient and there is no necessity on the part of the plaintiff, who files the suit for specific performance, to deposit the amount. The position of law with reference to the same in the abovesaid decision has been explained and the same is extracted below: “11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Parthasarathy relied upon the judgment reported in R.Rajram V. T.R.Maheswaran, 2010 (2) MLJ 253 and submitted that in a similar circumstance, this Court has held that when the plaintiff did not deposit the amount, he has committed breach of condition and therefore, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance. 12. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. 12. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. In the above judgment, this Court has considered a clause in the agreement of sale by which the agreement holder was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration before the Court and to file the suit for specific performance, in the event of failure on the part of the executant to execute the sale deed. In that circumstance, the learned Judge held that while filing the suit for specific performance, the plaintiff did not deposit the balance sale consideration as stipulated in the agreement and depositing of balance sale consideration before filing the suit for specific performance was a condition precedent as per the agreement and the plaintiff viz., the agreement holder in that suit failed to deposit the amount and therefore, he committed breach of contract and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. In this case, the recitals are not identical and as stated supra, it was only stated that in the event of failure on the part of the deceased first defendant in executing the sale deed, the agreement holder shall deposit the amount before the Court and treat the agreement of sale as sale deed and apply for compulsory registration. Therefore, the wordings in both the agreements are different and in the agreement which was the subject matter of the judgment reported in R.Rajram V. T.R.Maheswaran, 2010 (2) MLJ 253 , the agreement holder was directed to deposit the amount in Court and file the suit for specific performance. In the circumstances, the learned Judge held that the condition was prescribed under the agreement of sale and that condition was not complied with and therefore, the agreement holder is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. But, in this case, there was no such condition that before filing the suit for specific performance, the first respondent/plaintiff has to deposit the amount. It was only stated that the first respondent/plaintiff shall deposit the amount and treat the agreement of sale as sale deed and apply for compulsory registration. 13. It is well known that the agreement of sale cannot be treated as a sale and the plaintiff/first respondent cannot apply for compulsory registration as per the condition stated in the agreement of sale. He has to file the suit for specific performance for enforcing the agreement of sale. 13. It is well known that the agreement of sale cannot be treated as a sale and the plaintiff/first respondent cannot apply for compulsory registration as per the condition stated in the agreement of sale. He has to file the suit for specific performance for enforcing the agreement of sale. Hence, the condition stated therein cannot be construed as a condition precedent for enforcing the agreement of sale. 14. Further, it is also against the provisions of section 16(c) and the explanation attached to that section. As per section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, where a contract involves payment of the money, 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. Therefore, the section specifically says that there is no necessity on the part of the plaintiff, who sues for specific performance, to deposit the amount into Court and it is the well known proposition that no one can enter into an agreement against the statute. When the statute does not prescribe or does not compel a person to deposit the balance sale consideration before filing a suit for specific performance, even though there is a clause in the agreement of sale that the party, who applies for specific performance, has to deposit the amount in court, there is no necessity on the part of the party to deposit the amount and if he is capable of proving that he has got the means to pay the balance sale consideration, that is sufficient and there is no necessity on the part of the plaintiff, who files the suit for specific performance, to deposit the amount. 15. Therefore, as per the explanation to section 16(2) of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff/first respondent is not obliged to deposit the amount before filing the suit for specific performance and this aspect was not properly appreciated by the learned Judge in the judgment reported in R.Rajram V. T.R.Maheswaran, 2010 (2) MLJ 253 . 15. Therefore, as per the explanation to section 16(2) of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff/first respondent is not obliged to deposit the amount before filing the suit for specific performance and this aspect was not properly appreciated by the learned Judge in the judgment reported in R.Rajram V. T.R.Maheswaran, 2010 (2) MLJ 253 . Therefore, the failure to deposit the amount before the court before filing the suit for specific performance will not disentitle the first respondent from claiming the suit for specific performance and the condition stated in the agreement of sale cannot be enforced in a suit for specific performance as section 16(c) and the explanation attached to that section does not require the person to deposit the amount before filing the suit for specific performance. Hence, the first respondent has not committed any breach and the first substantial question law is answered against the appellant and in favour of the first respondent.” 16. Even in the decision reported in 2017 (4) CTC 734 (S.Deivanai and three others Vs. V.M.Kothandaraman and two others), this Court has held that the plaintiff is not required to produce money or vouch for a financing transaction to prove his readiness and willingness and accordingly, further held that non-deposit of balance sale consideration in the Court is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. In the light of the abovesaid position of law, I am in full agreement with the decision reported in 2011 (3) MWN (Civil) 559 (Adilingam and another Vs. Narayanan and seven others) and accordingly, when it is seen that there is no need on the part of the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration into the Court as per the terms of the sale agreement and considering the evidence of PWs1 & 2 in toto and when they have averred that they were having the cash in hand on 04.10.2007 and when the same is not established to be untrue and unacceptable, merely on the failure of the plaintiff to show her solvency by placing the bank account etc on that score alone, we cannot hold that the plaintiff is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the balance sale consideration and obtain the sale deed. On the other hand, the plaintiff examined as PW1 and one Nallathambi @ Perumal examined as PW2 have averred that they were having the cash in hand on 04.10.2007 and accordingly, waiting in the registrar's office for completing the sale transaction. In such view of the matter, merely because, no amount is credited in the account of PW2 as reflected in Ex.A5, it cannot be construed that the plaintiff and her son were not possessed of cash with them on 04.10.2007 for completing the sale transaction. When as abovenoted, there is no need on the part of the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration into the Court for obtaining the relief of specific performance and if really as put forth by the defendant, the defendant is aware of the financial capacity of the plaintiff and that she would not pay the balance sale consideration and obtain the sale deed, the defendant would not have endeavoured to enter into the sale agreement at all with the plaintiff. On the other hand, knowing fully well that the plaintiff is possessed of sufficient means and capable of raising the funds, accordingly, it is found that the defendant had been a willing member to the execution of the agreement and accordingly, the plaintiff is also found to have paid the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on the date of the sale agreement and the parties have also fixed the time limit of 15 days for completing the sale transaction. As rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish her means before the Courts below for proving the solvency and when considering the evidence adduced in the matter in toto when the plaintiff is found to be capable of raising the funds and complete the sale transaction, in such view of the matter, the trial Court is found to be justified in granting the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff by holding that she has been always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and it is only the defendant, who had been avoiding the execution of the sale deed as promised and the abvoesaid determination of the trial Court being found to be based on the proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter on the whole and in the light of the abovesaid discussions, I hold that the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and accordingly, further hold that the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the relief of specific performance as prayed for in respect of the sale agreement dated 20.09.2007. Accordingly, the point Nos. 1 & 2 are answered. 18. Point Nos.3 & 4 In the light of the abovesaid discussions, the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.155 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No.1, Salem, are confirmed and resultantly, the first appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.