THAYYIL CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. ATHIKKOTU PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit of the appellant for specific performance of Ext A1 agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property was dismissed by the trial court. His appeal was dismissed by the learned additional district judge. Hence the second appeal is filed.

(2.) The appellant was the tenant of the building which stood in the plaint schedule property. The said building collapsed. The landlord was one Madhavan. He died. His wife Sarojini and eight children including the respondents inherited the plaint schedule property. The appellant entered into Ext A1 agreement with Sarojini to purchase the suit property. Rs 5,000/- was paid to the latter by the former before the execution of Ext A1 towards sale consideration in advance. Rs 50,000/- was to be paid by the appellant within three months and the balance within six months from the date of execution of Ext A1. Madhavan had encumbered the suit property to the State Bank of Travancore for availing of a loan of Rs 20,000/-. His son Subramanian's undivided interest in the suit property was under attachment in a suit filed against Subramanian. Sarojini had to discharge the liability Madhavan owed to the bank and to free the property from the encumbrance within six months from the date of execution of Ext A1. It was also undertaken by Sarojini that within the said six months she would get the attachment referred to above terminated. The sale did not take place. These facts are admitted facts.

(3.) The case of the appellant is stated below: The price of the property agreed between the parties to the contract was Rs 1,35,000/-. But it was shown as Rs 1,85,000/- in Ext A1 in order to convince the other tenants of Sarojini. After the initial payment of Rs 5,000/-, the appellant paid Rs 60,000/- to Sarojini. She committed breach of the contract. She did not free the property from encumbrance as she failed to discharge the liability to the bank. She did not get the attachment on the fractional interest of Subramanian lifted. Sarojini did not obtain the consent of the respondents to execute the sale deed. The first respondent should execute the sale deed since the plaint schedule property was allotted to his share in partition of his family properties.