GOVINDAN Vs. ULAHANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant. The suit was dismissed by both the courts. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant and himself entered into Ext. Al agreement dated 29-8-1972 whereby the first defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff a property having an extent of 87 cents for a total consideration of Rs. 2,700/. The document of sale was to be executed and registered on or before 1-9-1972. Since the first defendant did not comply with the terms of Ext. A1, Ext. A5 lawyer's notice was caused to be sent calling upon the first defendant to execute the document of sale. The first defendant's lawyer replied to Ext. A5 on 12-9-1972 (Ext. A4) stating that the first defendant would execute the document only if certain conditions which had been orally agreed upon between the parties were duly incorporated in the document of sale.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit on 15-6-1973 stating that on 1-9-1972 he went to the office of the Sub Registrar with the sale price of Rs. 2,700/- in cash and waited for the first defendant to arrive and execute the document. Since the defendant did not arrive till 4 O'Clock, he went to the Indian Overseas Bank, Perumbavoor and deposited the said sum of Rs. 2,700/- as indicated in the pass-book Ext. A3. He has further stated in the plaint that he is prepared to deposit the sale price of Rs. 2,700/- into the court on obtaining the challan from the court for that purpose. In their written statement, various contentions have been raised by the defendants including the one relating to the unsustainability of the plaint as filed.

(3.) Both the courts found that the plaint averments did not satisfy the requirements of the law to obtain a decree for specific performance. The