M PONNUSWAMY Vs. M THAMARAI KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is 1st defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14-10-2004 in O. S. No. 15171/2000. 1st respondent is the plaintiff. 2nd respondent is defendant No. 2.

(2.) SUIT is one for specific performance of the contract by executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit site bearing No. 78 in sy. No. 106 of Kodihalli Village, H. A. Sanitary Board, Varthur Hobli, bangalore South Taluk and No. K formed out in southern portion of Sy. No. 105/a of Kodihalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

(3.) CASE of the plaintiff is that, 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale dated 10-9-1980 in respect of suit schedule property for consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid on the date of agreement and balance of Rs. 10,000/- was agreed to be paid in installments of Rs. 1,000/- every month till 15-7-1981. Plaintiff paid all the amount as agreed. On receipt of final payment of sale consideration, the 1st defendant delivered vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant was one of the agreement holder along with the plaintiff, but he abandoned his rights. Plaintiff constructed the house over the suit schedule property by investing Rs. 45,000/ -. The construction was completed in the year 1983. However, 1st defendant being lineal descendent of plaintiff s mother Smt. A. L. Rajammal who was living with the plaintiff used to visit the suit schedule property and the mother died on 28-4-1999. At the time of demise of the plaintiffs mother, defendant no. 1 was in occupation of the suit schedule property with the plaintiffs mother as a licensee. He promised to vacate and redeliver the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant did not perform his part of the contract. Further there was a ban of sale till 1998. The cause of action accrued to him when the defendant No. 1 refused to re-deliver the possession of the suit schedule property. On these averments, the plaintiff sought for decree for specific performance.