P RETNASWAMY Vs. A RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been filed for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff as per the agreement for sale dated 10-7-1996.

(2.) Plaint averments are as follows : The plaintiff is working as Assistant Engineer in the Rajiv Gandhi Transport Corporation, Chennai while the first defendant is the Deputy Manager in the same Corporation. The first defendant who is the absolute owner of the suit property proposed to sell the same for a price of Rs.10.05 lakhs. The plaintiff accepted and agreed to purchase the same for the said price. In pursuance of this agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.8.05 lakhs to the first defendant as part payment of the above said sale consideration. An agreement for sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 10-7-1996. 9 months' time was given to the plaintiff under the agreement for paying the balance of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the first defendant and the plaintiff could get the sale deed executed by D1 in his favour. The plaintiff approached the first defendant on 3-2-1997 and asked for the production of the original documents relating to the suit property in order to get legal opinion of his lawyer. D1 neither gave a proper reply nor did he hand over the original title deeds. Instead, D1 started prevaricating about his commitment under the agreement creating a strong doubt about his earnestness in the performance of his part of the agreement. He has now came to know from reliable sources that D1 is actively negotiating with the third parties for the sale of the suit property. As per the agreement, once the plaintiff comes forward with the balance amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs within 9 months, D1 is bound to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff caused a telegraphic notice to be sent to D1 on 12-2-1997, informing that he is ready and willing to get the sale deed in his favour by paying the balance amount. D1 is even now attempting to sell the suit property to the third parties notwithstanding the fact that he is already informed of the possession of the balance amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Under such circumstances, he has no other alternative except to file this suit for specific performance. At the hearing of the application No.95/97 filed by the plaintiff seeking an order of interim injunction restraining D1 from alienating the suit porperty to the third parties, it was informed to this Court by D1 that the suit property was sold as early as 30-1-1997 in favour of the second defendant. recording this information, the said application was dismissed by this Court on 3-4-1997. Even now D1 is having an interest in the suit property. When the plaintiff made an enquiry in the District Registrar Office, South, he was informed that the suit property was sold in favour of D2 for a price of Rs.4.60 lakhs. In the encumbrance certificate dated 18-2-1997, it was shown that the first defendant was the owner till 17-2-1997. As the suit property was said to have been sold for a paltry price of Rs.4.60 lakhs compared to its real worth of more than Rs. 10.00 lakhs, a suspicion crept into the mind of the plaintiff as to whether a genuine sale could have been effected at all for the said price with D2. The plaintiff further came to know that D1 entered into an arrangement with D2, according to which he would execute a sale deed in favour of D2. As a matter of fact, no such amount was paid by the second defendant to the first defendent. D2 has merely lent his name in order that D1 may achieve his object of defeating the interest of the plaintiff in the suit property as an agreement holder for sale. The so called sale deed in favour of D2 is only sham and nominal and there is no sale at all in the eye of law. As no consideration is passed, the alleged sale deed is void. In such circumstance, D1 continues to be the absolute owner of the suit property. As far as D2 is concerned, no right has accrued in his favour in respect of the suit property. However he is impleaded as a party in this suit as he has assisted D1 in the execution of the bogus sale deed. During the pendency of Application No.848/98, D1 issued nine cheques totally amounting to Rs.9.00 lakhs. As the plaintiff was only interested in the suit property, he did not encash the same. The plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice dated 6-7-1998, to which D1 sent a reply dt.24-7-1998.

(3.) The first defendant remained absent and he was set ex parte.