MANOHARAKUMARI Vs. ANITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for specific performance, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The case of plaintiff is that she and the defendants entered into an agreement of sale dated 30.6.1994 agreeing to sell the suit schedule house property for Rs. 16.75 lakhs and a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the 1 st defendant by means of a Pay Order bearing No. 398659 dated 29.6.1994 drawn on the Vijaya Bank, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore towards part of sale consideration and the Pay order was encashed by the 1 st defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are minor daughters of 1 st defendant. As per the terms of the sale agreement, sale deed has to be executed after getting permission of the competent Court in so far as the share of minors - Defendants 2 and 3. Jayaram - 1 st defendant's husband was the absolute owner of the suit property and he died intestate on 3.8.1991. After death of Jayaram, Venkatalakshmi - mother of Jayaram and Snehalatha, sister of Jayaram have relinquished their right in the suit property in favour of defendants by virtue of Exhibit A-19 - release deed. Further case of plaintiff is that to obtain permission of the Court to alienate the shares of minors, the 1 st defendant filed H.M.G.O.P. No. 433 of 1994 before the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. In the said H.M.G.O.P., plaintiff filed application I.A. No. 457 of 1995 to implead herself. According to plaintiff, with an intention to defeat the legitimate right of plaintiff, by filing memo, 1 st defendant has not pressed the main O.P., and the Court dismissed the H.M.G.O.P., as well as her impleading petition. According to the plaintiff, she was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Only the defendants have not honoured their commitments under the sale agreement. After issuance of the pre-suit notice Exhibit A-13, which was acknowledged by the defendants, the defendants have not chosen to reply. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance stating that she is always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.

(3.) During pendency of the suit, 1st defendant died on 6.6.1998 and her only legal heirs - the respondents/defendants 2 and 3 had become majors.