SIVAGANESAN Vs. RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of both the courts below. The defendant, who lost the case at the hands of the plaintiff before the trial court and the First Appellate Court on appeal, has filed the Second Appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/ appellant heavily contending before this Court has attempted to pinpoint the error said to have been committed by both, the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court in granting the decree for specific performance and subsequently affirmed in the Appeal. Adding further, learned counsel stated that when there was an Agreement reduced in writing on 06.06.2002 between the plaintiff and the defendant for sale of the suit property, for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, the plaintiff on the basis of the sale agreement dated 06.06.2002, coupled with another endorsement made behind the same sale agreement stating that a further payment of Rs.25,000/- was made on 15.11.2003, claimed to have issued a notice dated 21.05.2004, brought the suit for specific performance to pass a decree against the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent in respect of the suit property, and the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- to be paid within a period so fixed by the trial court. Immediately after notice, the plaintiff/ appellant filed a detailed written statement taking a specific, explicit and conspicuous stand that although the defendant was also equally ready and willing to execute the contract and was present before the Office of the Sub Registrar, Kadampuliyur from 9 am to 5 pm on 07.06.2004, the learned Trial Court, without framing a specific issue on the readiness and willingness from the plaintiff's side, as contemplated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963, merely framing all the issues ignoring the evidence adduced by DW-2 Vetrivel supporting the case of the defendant, that he was ready and willing to execute the contract but the plaintiff/ respondent was not able to show his readiness to execute the contract wrongly decreed the suit.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, when an appeal was preferred before the learned First Appellate Court, repeating the same mistakes committed by the learned trial court, the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge has confirmed the erroneous findings and conclusions reached by the trial court. Adding further, he had stated that the plaintiff who has filed the suit for getting a decree for specific performance against the defendant, must prove his readiness and willingness, otherwise the decree for specific performance of a contract cannot be granted in favour of him. In the present case, he added, the learned trial court and the learned First Appellate Court have repeatedly committed the same infirmities. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree granted by the learned courts below are required to be interfered with.