S.SENTHIL KUMAR Vs. K.C.VARADHARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2013 passed in O.S.No.36 of 2012 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.

(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the appeal suit. The suit was instituted for specific performance and for permanent injunction with costs.

(3.) The facts in nutshell narrated in the plaint are that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. The plaintiff was doing business in the suit property for several years as a tenant. On negotiation, the sale consideration was fixed as Rs.10,00,000/- and they have entered into an agreement dated 28.02.2005. The defendant had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance and promised to execute the sale on or before 27.02.2008. Even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to purchase the property, the defendant had evaded the execution of sale. Considering the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, there was a compromise and both of them had agreed for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- , by cancelling the previous agreement. They have executed another sale agreement on 15.05.2008 and the said sale agreement was registered under Document No.4848/2008. Initially, the defendant had received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and the defendant had promised to perform his part of contract on or before 14.05.2011. The defendant had received further advance amount of Rs.8,65,000/- on 19.05.2008 and Rs.3,35,000/- on 22.05.2008 and endorsed the same on the reverse side of the agreement. The plaintiff states that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the remaining balance consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the defendant was evading and not willing to perform his part of the contract. Thus, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant on 09.04.2011. The defendant sent a reply notice dated 25.04.2011 with false averments and made an attempt to alienate the property to some other third party. Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit for specific performance.