Facts/Background:

• The Appellants, including Shenbagam, owned a property measuring about 12.60 acres in Patta Nos. 147, 240, 217, Madukkarai Village, Coimbatore. On 7 February 1990, they signed a sale agreement with the respondent for the property.
• The Respondent, KK Rathinavel, is the buyer who entered into the sale agreement to purchase the appellants' property for a consideration of Rs.1,25,000. He paid an advance of Rs.25,000 initially and another Rs.10,000 later.
• The dispute arose when the Appellants alleged that the Respondent was not ready and willing to fulfil his contractual obligations and issued a legal notice on 19 December 1990 rescinding the agreement.
• In response, the Respondent sought specific performance of the agreement, asserting that the Appellants had not discharged a mortgage on the property, which was a condition precedent for completing the sale.
• In 1991, the Respondent filed a suit in Coimbatore seeking to restrain the Appellants from alienating the property, securing an interim injunction while the Appellants discharged the mortgage debt.
• On 17 June 1993, the Respondent instituted a suit for specific performance. By its judgment dated 11 October 1996, the Trial Court decreed in favour of the Respondent, directing the Appellants to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance consideration of ₹90,000. The court held the suit to be within limitation and legally tenable.
• The Appellants filed a first appeal (A.S. No. 67 of 1997) before the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, challenging the trial court’s decree. On 24 February 1998, the first Appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's findings.
• The Appellants filed a second appeal before the Madras High Court, which was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decree for specific performance and affirmed the respondent's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the present appeal was filed before this court.
  

Main issue:

• Whether the Respondent-Plaintiff had performed or had always been “ready and willing” to perform his obligations under the contract? (Paragraph 13)