AMALORPAVA MARY AMMAL DIED Vs. S GOPALARATHINAM TIRUCHIRAPALLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli passed in O.S.No.1 of 1984 dated 27.2.1987. The defendants are the appellants.

(2.) THE plaint averments are summarised. THE defendants professed to be the owners of the suit property and they derived title to suit property under the Will executed by Sornathammal in favour of her daughter, the first defendant herein for life and to be taken by her four sons, the defendants 2 to 5 herein absolutely. Defendants entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 11.7.1983 to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,62,500 and after the execution, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000 in cash and the defendants received the same. As per the sale agreement, the defendants have to receive the balance of sale price, namely, Rs.1,22,500 from the plaintiff and execute the sale deed. Since the defendants derived title to the suit land under the Will of the christian lady, they promised to get the probate of the Will before the execution of the sale deed. THE defendants also promised to get Income-tax Clearance Certificate before the registration. But, they have not done any of the two things. Still the plaintiff wanted them, as an alternative course, to get the consent letters of any four of the five in favour of the fifth person to enable the fifth person to proceed with the sale deed since all of them are happened to be the heirs at law under the Indian Succession Act, but they did not do that also. THE plaintiff was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour or in favour of his nominee Deepak Real Estate at any time within the period of three months and he was keeping the money ready with him to pay the defendants. Pursuant to the sale agreement, the plaintiff was placed in possession of the suit land since the advance itself is more than 40% of the sale price to enable the plaintiff to survey the land for preparing a lay-out and to plant the boundary stones. THE plaintiff is actually dealing in real estate and so, he has prepared the lay-out converting the land into house-sites. THE defendants seemed to have been offered an enhanced price for the land by some third party and they abruptly sent a notice to the plaintiff stating that the agreement is cancelled. THE plaintiff sent a reply stating that the agreement is still subsisting and he can specifically enforce the agreement. THE plaintiff prays for judgment and decree against the defendants for specific performance of the agreement dated 11.7.1983 by directing the defendants to execute the sale deed either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of his nominee Deepak Real Estate and in default to cause the sale deed to be executed by the court.

(3.) POINTS.1 to 3: