MEENATCHI Vs. ANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing.

(2.) The suit in OS No. 393 of 2005 was laid by the plaintiff respondent herein seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.03.2003. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale agreeing to sell the suit property to her for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and had received an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the date of the agreement i.e., 19.03.2003. A period of two years was fixed for the payment of balance of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Since the defendant did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed as per the agreed terms, the plaintiff issued a notice on 14.06.2005 and the suit was filed on 11.11.2005.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the suit transaction is not an agreement of sale at all, she only wanted to borrow a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by mortgaging the property, the plaintiff appears to have cheated her and fabricated the sale agreement. It was claimed that the suit property is worth more than Rs. 10,00,000/-, even on the date of the agreement and therefore, there is no possibility of her having agreed to sell the same for Rs. 3,00,000/-. An ex parte decree came to be passed on 09.08.2007. Soon thereafter i.e., on 17.08.2007, the defendant filed an Application in IA No. 783 of 2007 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. Unfortunately the said application in IA No. 783 of 2007 came to be dismissed for default on 22.04.2008 for not taking steps for service of notice.