SASIDHARAN PILLAI Vs. DEVAKY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant. These are the facts: The 1st defendant is the mother of defendants 2 to 4. Defendants 2 to 4 are minors. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Bhaskaran Pillai father of defendants 2 to 4 and husband of the 1st defendant. Bhaskaran Pillai got the property under a partition deed No.6283 of 1950 of the Sub Registry Office, Chadayamangalam. Bhaskaran Pillai died in testate. So the properties devolved on defendants 1 to 4 in equal shares.

(2.) The defendants wanted to sell the plaint schedule properties to secure a job for the 1st defendant in the best interest of minor defendants 2 to 4. Ext.A1 agreement was executed by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant acting for herself and for and on behalf of defendants 2 to 4. Plaintiff agreed to purchase plaint A schedule property for a price of Rs.46,700/- and paid Rs.25,000/- on 21-7-1981. Since a litigation O.P.No. 70 of 1981-was pending in regard to plaint A schedule property, the date for executing the sale deed was fixed to a date within 30 days from the disposal of O.P.No. 70 of 1981. Plaintiff was willing to purchase the property and he got ready with the balance sale consideration of Rs.21,700/-. O.P.No. 70 of 1981 was disposed of on 3-3-1983. Plaintiff was willing to purchase the property from that day onwards, viz., 3-3-1983 by paying the balance sale consideration. He has stated in the plaint that he was always willing and continue to be willing even on the date of filing the suit to purchase the property as agreed to in the agreement, Ext. A1. The 1st defendant refused to execute the sale deed and that necessitated the institution of the suit.

(3.) It was contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance, since the agreement was executed exerting fraud on the 1st defendant In fact, the 1st defendant has not agreed to sell plaint A schedule property to the plaintiff. It was further contended that the 1st defendant has not received Rs.25,000/- as per Ext A1 agreement. Defendants also contended that the plaintiff had no money to pay the consideration as alleged in the plaint. Defendants prayed that the court should dismiss the suit.