P. DAIVASIGAMANI Vs. S. SAMBANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 15/6/2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No. 196 of 2002, whereby the High Court has allowed the said appeal, modified the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") in O.S. 212 of 1993, and decreed the said suit by granting the prayer for specific performance and also for permanent injunction against the present appellant (original defendant) in respect of the suit property.

(2.) The respondent (original plaintiff) had filed the suit in the Trial Court seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale dtd. 5/10/1989, against the appellant (original defendant) and had prayed in the alternative for refund of the earnest (advance) money with interest, and also for the compensation. The respondent had also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the appellant - defendant from alienating or transferring the suit property to any third party. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit granting prayer for refund of the earnest money with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and dismissed the suit so far as other prayers were concerned, vide the judgment and decree dtd. 28/6/2002.

(3.) The short facts given rise to the present appeal are that the appellant Mr. P. Daivasigamani was the owner of the suit land i.e., the land to an extent of 1 acre out of 1.80 acre of wetland comprised in survey nos. 287 and 288, situated in No. 85 Ayanambakkam, District Ambattur. He had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with the respondent Shri S. Sambandan on 5/10/1989. The appellant had agreed to sell the said land for a sum of Rs.6,50,000.00. On the date of execution of the agreement, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.50,000.00 by way of earnest money as part of sale consideration. The time for completion of sale transaction was stipulated to be 6 months in the said agreement. As per the case of the respondent, though he had periodically contacted the appellant requesting him to execute the sale deed, and had shown his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, the appellant failed to respond or to perform his part of the contract. The respondent thereafter vide the letter dtd. 17/3/1990 sent by registered post, called upon the appellant to execute a deed of power of attorney and to conclude the said transaction, however there was no response from the appellant to the said letter. The respondent thereafter again sent a notice through his lawyer on 26/3/1990, to the appellant which was returned with an endorsement "refused". The respondent thereafter caused a public notice published in the Tamil daily "Dhina Thanthi" on 2/5/1990 and in English daily "Indian Express" on 6/5/1990, informing the public at large not to enter into any sale transaction with the appellant in respect of the suit property. Despite the said efforts having been made by the respondent, the appellant failed to fulfill his obligation under the agreement. The respondent-plaintiff thereafter filed the suit seeking specific performance of the said agreement.