T VENKATACHALAM Vs. D SANDIAGO AND P LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 passed in O.S. No. 99 of 2008 by the Fast Tract Court, Dindigul.

(2.) The first Respondent herein as Plaintiff has instituted O.S. No. 99 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of specific performance and also for perpetual injunction, wherein the present Appellant has been shown as first Defendant.

(3.) It is averred in the plaint that the first Defendant and one Paranjothi have purchased the suit property and some other properties from one Kandasamy Raj under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1986 and subsequently, a family arrangement has been made on 05.07.2002, wherein the suit property has been given to the share of the first Defendant and patta for the suit property stands in the name of the first Defendant. The first Defendant has agreed to sell the suit property and some other properties for a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in favour of the Plaintiff and on 11.05.2005 the first Defendant has executed an advance receipt and thereby received Rs. 2,50,000/-. Further, both the Plaintiff and first Defendant have agreed to sell house plots and out of sale proceeds of each house plot, the first Defendant is entitled to get 80% and remaining 20% must go to the Plaintiff and in that way, the first Defendant has agreed to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 5/-lakhs and subsequently, a sale has been made in favour of one Pathmavathi and thereafter, the suit sale agreement has come into existence on 11.08.2005 by way of excluding the property which has been sold in favour of the said Pathmavathi. In the sale agreement dated 11.08.2005, it has been mentioned that the advance amount paid on 11.05.2005 has to be treated as advance. The Plaintiff has improved the suit property by way of spending huge money. The first Defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of the second Defendant and the same is nothing but sham and nominal and the same is against the sale agreement dated 11.08.2005. The Plaintiff has issued a notice to the Defendants and even after receipt of the same, the first Defendant has not come forward to execute a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the relief of specific performance and also for the relief of perpetual injunction.