SUBA SRI MANI Vs. S SARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This revision petition arises out of the judgment and decree rendered in A.S. No. 38 of 1986, which in turn arose out of the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 911 of 1983. The defendant in the suit is the petitioner herein. O.S. No. 911 of 1983 was filed by the respondent herein for return of documents of title deeds.

(2.) THE facts of this revision are briefly as follows :? THE plaintiff/respondent herein is the owner of the property situate at Teacher's Colony, comprised in R.S. No. 19/2 and T.S. Nos. 25, 29, 30 and 31 (parts) in block No. 21 at Pallipattu, Adyar, Madras-20. THE petitioner herein entered into an agreement of sale to purchase this property from the respondent. THE sale agreement was executed on 28-11-1981. THE sale consideration was Rs. 1,63,000. A sum of Rs. 6,000 was paid by way of advance, on the dat e of execution of the sale agreement. THE sale transaction should be completed within 3 months from the date of agreement of sale. Soon after the sale agreement was executed, the respondent herein, delivered the title deed to the petitioner herein which are set out in Schedule II in the plaint. It was agreed between the parties that the petitioner herein should obtain the encumbrance certificate for 13 years. THE petitioner herein also applied for the same. THEreafter, the petitioner herein did not evince any interest in completing the sale transaction within the time stipulated. THErefore the respondent herein requested the petitioner to extend the time for completing the sale transaction. THE petitioner also paid a further advance of Rs. 4,000. THE time was extended by one month.

(3.) BEFORE this court, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/petitioner herein submitted that the first appellate court was not correct in decreeing the suit as prayed for. According to the learned counsel, because of the default committed by the respondent herein the sale could not be completed within the stipulated time. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner herein paid an advance of Rs. 10,000 and waiting for the respondent to produce the encumbrance certificate and the title deeds and therefore the suit filed by the respondent herein is premature. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner herein never committed any breach of contract. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no cause of action to file this suit. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner herein is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. According to the learned counsel, the respondent herein ought not to have filed the suit before the City Civil Court. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent ought to have filed the suit and the appeal before the Small Causes Court, since the value of the suit is only Rs. 500. The learned counsel pointed out that the first appellate court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the judgment and decree of the first appeliate court are unsustainable and therefore they should be set aside.