No. 515 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 23-03-2026 :::: Pronounced on : 05-06-2026 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU AS No. 515 of 2016 and CMP Nos. 17009, 12188 & 18867 of 2016 G.Vijaya A.Maharani Vs ..Appellant(s) ..Respondent(s) Prayer : This Appeal Suit filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 made in O.S. No. 2 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam. For Appellant(s): For Respondent(s): Mr.K.R.Gunashekar Ms.V.Srimathi J U D G M E N T The present Appeal suit has been filed seeking to set aside

[23/07, 07:57] sekarreporter1: No. 515 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 23-03-2026 :::: Pronounced on : 05-06-2026 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU AS No. 515 of 2016 and CMP Nos. 17009, 12188 & 18867 of 2016 G.Vijaya A.Maharani Vs ..Appellant(s) ..Respondent(s) Prayer : This Appeal Suit filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 made in O.S. No. 2 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam. For Appellant(s): For Respondent(s): Mr.K.R.Gunashekar Ms.V.Srimathi J U D G M E N T The present Appeal suit has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 passed in O.S.No. 2 of 2014 by the Additional District And Sessions Judge-III, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the defendant approached the Plaintiff with an offer to sell the suit schedule Property for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. At that time, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that she had borrowed a sum
[23/07, 07:57] sekarreporter1: 2016 20. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any infirmity in the findings and reasoning of the trial Court in holding that Ex.A2 is nothing sort of agreement of sale. 21. Readiness and willingness:As an alternative plea, the readiness and willingness of the respondent had also been contested by the appellant. The execution of the Ex.A2 had been admitted, but had been contested only to be a document of security which this Court had found otherwise as supra. Under the said document, advance of consideration to the tune of Rs.18 lakhs for various reasons had been admitted to by the appellant. What remained to be paid was Rs.2 lakhs. Under Ex.A3, the respondent had called upon the appellant to execute the sale deed pursuant to Ex.A2. The reply of the appellant under Ex.A5 blankly denies the execution of Ex.A2. There is no contest by the appellant either with the nature of the document nor the readiness and willingness of the respondent in performing her part of the contract. This would only show that the appellant had been trying to evade the execution of the sale deed pursuant to Ex.A2 and that as rightly pointed out by the Court, the respondent had always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.