JANARDHANAM PRASAD Vs. RAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant herein and one M. Manoharan (1st Defendant) entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a property in suit. 1st Defendant and respondent No. 1 herein entered into another agreement for sale on 11.4.1983. In the former agreement the transaction by way of execution of the deed of sale was to be completed within a period of three months, whereas in the later case, no time limit was fixed. The 1st Defendant executed a registered deed of sale in favour of the appellant herein on 4.0.1985.

(2.) The 1st Defendant contended that he had asked the 2nd Defendant to execute a deed of sale in his favour and he had gone to the registration office, but 2nd Defendant did not turn up. As Respondent was working in Saudi Arabia, his affairs were being looked after by his father-in-law, Shri CM. Raman Chettiar, and his wife, Smt. Vijaya. According to the 1st Defendant, he had paid Rs. 7,700/- by way of part payment of the entire amount of consideration which was fixed at Rs. 17,000/-. When he came back from Saudi Arabia in August, 1983, May, 1984, 1985 and 1986, he asked the Respondent No. 2 to execute the deed of sale on receipt of the balance amount, but he had been avoiding to do the same.

(3.) The suit for specific performance of contract was thereafter filed. The said suit was dismissed. However, the First Appellate Court, on an appeal preferred there against by the Respondent No. 1, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the second appeal. Respondent had served a notice upon said M. Manoharan to perform his part of contract on 15.9.1986. The Respondent did not examine himself in the suit. His father-in-law and his wife had been examined on his behalf.