(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant herein. Pending the appeal, the defendant died and her legal representative has been impleaded after the delay in bringing him on record has been condoned. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment by their ranking in the trial court.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows:? An agreement was entered on 9.7.1979 under Ex. A-1 between the plaintiff and defendant for sale of the property described fully in the plaint schedule for a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid by way of advance to the defendant. It was agreed that the balance of consideration was to be received before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration. THE agreement was attested by one Chakrapani, brother of defendant, and one Venkatesan, a broker. It was stated in the agreement that documents of title should be handed over to the plaintiff immediately and within fifteen days after scrutiny of the title deeds, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- should be paid by the plaintiff, if she was satisfied with the title. THE total time fixed for registration of the document was three months. THE plaintiff received a notice dated 17.8.1979 marked Ex. A.9 issued by a third party making a claim under a prior mortgage. THE plaintiff, therefore, sent a telegram to the defendant on 1.9.1979 under Ex. B1 to the effect that the agreement was valid and if anything was found wrong the plaintiff would proceed legally against the defendant. We are not able to decipher the purpose of such a telegram at the instance of the plaintiff.
(3.) ANOTHER defence raised was that the plaintiff lost the right to enforce the contract because of her own default in not paying the sum of Rs. 10,000/- as agreed to originally after the scrutiny of title deeds. Yet another defence was that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and, therefore, not entitled to get a decree for specific performance.