ABSAL SAHEB Vs. N GAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants who suffered a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale both before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, are the appellants herein. Originally the first and second defendants alone were parties to the suit laid by the plaintiff. As both of them passed away, the other defendants/appellants herein have come on record, as legal representatives of the original defendants 1 and 2.

(2.) THE plaintiff laid the suit contending that the first and second defendants having agreed to sell the suit properties for a sum of Rs.91,000/-, executed the agreement for sale on 14.9.1982, receiving a sale advance of Rs.10,100/-. THE plaintiff has contended that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Inspite of the notice served on the defendants 1 and 2, they had not expressed their willingness to perform their part of the contract. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that Ex.A1 was not executed in a fair manner. Coercion and force were applied to the second defendant, who is none other than the wife of the first defendant, to put her signature in Ex.A1. THE plaintiff having taken advantage of the signature of the first defendant has got the agreement executed in an unfair way. It is also contended that the second defendant who is a pardhanashin woman had no occasion to read the terms of the agreement and as a result of which, she was not aware of the terms of the agreement. It is also submitted that the aforesaid circumstances would go to show that there was no consensus ad idem to execute the agreement-Ex.A1 by defendants 1 and 2. He would also contend that the second defendant would not have ventured to enter into an agreement for sale when she had already executed a reconveynace agreement in favour of one K.M.Abdul Magith, way back on 21.11.1973. THE last submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that after all the plaintiff has come forward with a prayer for alternative relief with a view to get back the advance paid by him. THErefore, he would submit that discretionary relief of specific performance of agreement for sale may not be granted to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff would get an unfair advantage over the defendants 1 and 2 if they are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.