Specific performance cannot be granted absent continuous readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations.

The original plaintiff, S. Suresh, claimed that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for ₹51,00,000 and acknowledged receipt of ₹9,50,000 allegedly paid between 20 August 1998 and 18 February 1999 under an agreement dated 20 June 2000.

The plaintiff further alleged that ₹1,50,000 was paid on 27 February 2006 and ₹50,000 on 20 April 2007, but that the defendant failed to execute the sale deed after evicting the tenants, as allegedly agreed.

The plaintiff claimed continuous readiness and willingness and sought specific performance and injunction.

The defendant denied execution of the agreement, disputed the alleged payments and signatures, and pleaded that the document was fabricated by the plaintiff, a real-estate intermediary to whom the defendant had entrusted certain property-related matters and documents concerning tenant litigation.

The defendant also pleaded limitation.

The suit was originally instituted before the High Court as C.S. No. 544 of 2010 and was later transferred to the City Civil Court.

The plaintiff’s evidence remained incomplete; the suit was dismissed for default in 2021, subsequently restored, and the plaintiff nevertheless failed to appear for cross-examination or lead further evidence.

Applications to reopen the evidence and recall witnesses were dismissed and were not challenged.

The XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dismissed the suit on 31 January 2024, resulting in the present appeal under Section 96 CPC.

1. Whether the sale agreement dated 20 June 2000, marked as Ex.A1, was genuine and valid, and whether the plaintiff established readiness and willingness from the inception of the agreement to obtain specific performance?

2. Whether the parties were entitled to any other relief?

The Court applied the principles governing specific performance, particularly the requirement that a plaintiff must establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations.

It relied on Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which distinguishes a contract for sale from a completed sale and provides that a contract for sale does not, by itself, create any interest or charge in the property.

The Court also applied the principle that specific performance is not granted as a matter of right where the plaintiff’s conduct, bona fides, readiness and willingness, or proof of the underlying agreement are doubtful.

It considered the evidentiary consequence of the plaintiff’s failure to subject his evidence to cross-examination, observing that the defendant’s unshaken evidence remained proved.

The Court distinguished Modern Lock Manufacturing Co. v. E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal, relied upon for the proposition that a litigant should not ordinarily suffer for the fault of counsel, because the plaintiff’s conduct showed repeated changes of counsel, restoration of the suit, and continued failure to prosecute the claim.

The Court found substantial circumstances undermining Ex.A1.

Although the agreement concerned property valued at ₹51,00,000, it recorded no payment on the date of execution and merely referred to alleged past payments; the Court considered it improbable that a genuine vendor would execute such an agreement without receiving any amount on that date.

The plaintiff had not signed the agreement, did not produce the alleged original title deeds referred to in Ex.A1, and failed to establish the alleged tenancy arrangement or the defendant’s obligation to first evict the tenants.

Most importantly, the plaintiff neither issued a demand or legal notice for nearly ten years after the agreement nor produced evidence demonstrating financial capacity to pay the balance consideration or continuous readiness and willingness.

The plaintiff also failed to appear for cross-examination, while the defendant’s evidence regarding the circumstances in which the documents came into the plaintiff’s possession remained unshaken.

These facts, together with the plaintiff’s repeated procedural defaults and failure to challenge orders closing or refusing further evidence, led the Court to conclude that the claim lacked bona fides and that Ex.A1 appeared to have been used to obtain control over the property of an absentee owner.

It held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the genuineness and enforceability of Ex.A1 and, in any event, failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Specific performance therefore could not be granted.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 31 January 2024 in O.S. No. 8602 of 2019 passed by the XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, were confirmed.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.