KULANDAISAMI GOUNDER Vs. R SRIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 14.09.1998 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S.No.4 of 1997, whereby the decree and judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupur, dated 26.02.1996 in O.S.No.536 of 1990, were confirmed.

(2.) THE 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent and the appellants are the defendants before the trial court and the plaintiff filed the suit for a specific performance, directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit properties in his favour and also to put the plaintiff in possession of the same. THE 2nd defendant Kulandaisamy (1st appellant herein) is the father and defendants 1 and 3 are his sons (2nd appellant and the 2nd respondent). THE case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant Ranganathan (2nd respondent herein) is the owner of the suit properties and he agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff by an agreement dated 19.10.1989 for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and received an advance of Rs.20,000/- on the same day and the 1st defendant also agreed to execute the sale deed on payment of the balance amount in six months. Subsequently, the plaintiff paid another sum of Rs.10,000/- on 05.12.1989 and the same was endorsed in the agreement and the period of agreement was extended till 19.10.1990. While so, defendants 2 and 3, the father and brother of the 1st defendant, issued a notice to the 1st defendant on 03.11.1989, a copy of which was also sent to the plaintiff, demanding share in the suit properties and stated that the 1st defendant had no absolute right over the suit properties and that they are the joint family properties. On enquiry with the 1st defendant, the plaintiff was informed that defendants 2 and 3 had no right over the suit properties and that he alone is entitled to the same. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance amount of Rs.2,10,000/-, the 1st defendant was evading the execution of the sale deed. Hence, he came forward with the suit.

(3.) ORIGINALLY the plaintiff filed the suit for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed. Subsequent to the filing of the written statements, the plaintiff has amended the prayer