LIZAMMA URMESE Vs. S SANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S. 293 of 1997 preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 43 8 of 1992 dated 27.8.1996 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

(2.) Transfer Appeal A.S. No. 1137 of 2001 filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 373 of 1992 dated 27.8.1996 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Dindigul. This appeal was pending on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul and was ordered to be transferred to this Court to be heard along with A.S. No. 293 of 1997. Both appeals are arising out of the common judgment delivered in O.S. No. 373 of 1992 and O.S. No. 438 of 1992 dated 27.8.1996. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 373 of 1992 who is the second defendant in O.S. No. 438 of 1992 is the appellant. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 438 of 1992 is the first respondent in A.S. No. 293 of 1998 and the second respondent in Transfer A.S. No. 1137 of 2001.

(3.) The brief facts of the case giving rise to both the appeals are as follows: The suit property bearing Door No. 77 and 78-A measuring 95 cents in Survey No. 87 in Kodaikanal originally belong to the respondents herein. The second respondent K.S. Chandrasekaran is the sister's husband of the first respondent who is the contesting party. Therefore, he is referred as first respondent in this common judgment. The appellant entered into a sale agreement with the respondents on 6.1.1997 for the purchase of the property. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale price was fixed at Rs. 1,02,000/- and the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- by way of demand draft as advance. The possession was handed over to the appellant. The time to conclude the contract was fixed as three months with necessary default clauses. However, the time was extended and the appellant was permitted to continue to be in possession and the appellant made several payments on various dates to the second respondent who is the co-owner of the property. The last of such payment was made on 21.5.1983. The appellant approached the vendors for the execution of the sale deed on several occasions and they have not come forward to perform their part of contract. Therefore, originally a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 19 of 1986 was filed before the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam which is later transferred to Dindigul in O.S. No. 373 of 1992.