VEERAYEE AMMAL Vs. SEENI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concurrent findings of fact were set aside by the High Court vide the judgment impugned in this appeal by holding that the alleged substantial question of law formulated by it stood proved in favour of the respondent-defendant as the appellant-plaintiff had not established that she had been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. It was further held that the relief of specific performance, being an equitable relief, the same could not be enforced in favour of the appellant who was found to have failed to prove that she performed or had always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the agreement executed between the parties.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant entered into an agreement to sell (Exhibit A-2) with the respondent-defendant initially on 5-1-1980 and subsequently on 16-3-1980 with respect to land measuring 27 cents for a price of Rs. 24,300/-. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- is stated to have been paid to the respondent-defendant on the day of the execution of the agreement which was reduced to writing and signed by the parties. As the respondent-defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract after notice to her. In her written statement respondent-defendant admitted the execution of the agreement and the receipt of Rs. 8,000/-. It was, however, contended that as the appellant-plaintiff committed breach of the contract and failed to pay the balance amount of consideration, her suit for specific performance was not maintainable. It was further contended that time was the essence of the contract between the parties as was evident from the terms of the agreement.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :