PANKAJAM PARTHASARATHY Vs. KASTURI GUNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1984 in O.S.No.2066 of 1961 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit is for specific performance. The defendants in the suit are the first and the second appellants and the plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant died and his legal representatives are impleaded as appellants 3 to 6 in the appeal.

(2.) THE plaint averments are that the mother of the defendants, by name, late R.K. Chengammal, was the owner of the house property bearing door no.28 (New No.47), Ganga Nagar, Chennai-24 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") and when the owner expressed her intention to sell the suit property, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. In pursuance of the negotiations between the parties, late R.K. Chengammal entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.1.1977 with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.51,000 (Rupees Fifty One Thousand only), without any encumbrance and the plaintiff has paid an advance amount of Rs.5,000 to late R.K. Chengammal at the time of execution of the agreement of sale. THE first defendant is the attesting witness to the agreement. As per the plaint allegations, the terms of the agreement provide that the execution and registration of sale deed should be completed within three months from the date of the agreement and R.K. Chengammal should also produce encumbrance certificate and other documents relating to the suit property to the plaintiff. It is stated that R.K. Chengammal did not comply with the terms and postponed the registration. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.20,000 was paid by the plaintiff to R.K. Chengammal on 23.1.1978 in the presence of the defendants and the receipt of the same was also endorsed on the last page of the agreement of sale and the defendants have signed the receipt as witnesses along with one M.A. Abbas who acted as a mediator. It is stated that the amount was paid on the assurance given by R.K. Chengammal and the defendants that the sale would be completed within a short time.

(3.) IT is also necessary to notice that during the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant Raghavachari died on 13.1.1998 and an affidavit was filed by one Srinivasan, Power Agent of the legal representatives of the deceased Raghavachari who are residing in United Kingdom, and accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased Raghavachari were brought on record. Further, it is necessary to mention here that before the trial Court, the first defendant acted as the Power of Attorney Agent for the second defendant and now, after the death of the second appellant, a third party, one Srinivasan is acting a Power Agent for the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant.