D. PALANICHAMI Vs. M. VENKATACHALA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the suit for specific performance. The parties are described as per the ranking and description found in the plaint.

(2.) The brief facts of the case leading to the appeal: On 27.02.2003, the plaintiff viz., Venkatachala Gounder as purchaser and the defendants Duraisamy Gounder, his son Palanichamy Gounder, wife Govindammal and daughter Savithri, as vendors entered into a sale agreement in respect of the suit property. As per the terms of the agreement, the value of the suit property was fixed as Rs.10,00,000/- and consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid to the vendors on the date of agreement. The balance Rs.2,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by the purchaser within a period of nine months. Parties agreed to execute the sale deed on payment of the balance sale consideration and in case of any fault, it was agreed to be enforced through Court of law. The said sale agreement was duly registered before the Sub Registrar Office, Palladam. Thereafter, when the purchaser/plaintiff expressed his ready and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and requested the vendors/defendants to execute the sale deed, the vendors/defendants postponed to execute the deed under some protest or other. Hence, the purchaser/plaintiff issued a legal notice to the vendors/defendants on 21.11.2003. The vendors/defendants were called upon to be present at Sub Registrar Office, Palladam, to execute the sale deed on 24.11.2003 and they were informed that the purchaser/plaintiff will be ready with the balance sale consideration and the sale document at the Sub Registrar Office, Palladam. The vendors/defendants did not turn up. Hence, the suit for specific performance to execute the sale deed or in alternate, to repay the advance money of Rs.8,00,000/- with 24% interest.

(3.) The first defendant Duraisamy died pending suit leaving behind the other defendants 2 to 4 as his legal heirs. The second defendant filed written statement. According to his written statement, they never entered in an agreement with the intention to sell the suit property and the document was not executed to sell the property. The defendants 1 and 2 were indebted to State Bank of India, Pongalur Branch. To clear the debt, they approached the plaintiff for financial assistance. When the plaintiff insisted for a security to advance loan, the defendants came forward to mortgage the suit property. However, to avoid heavy stamp duty, a deed of agreement for sale came to be executed and registered with an understanding that the loan will be cleared within 11 months. The plaintiff, after deducting interest at the rate of 30% for four months, paid only a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- in installments on various dates between 27.02.2003 and 22.04.2003. He did not pay the advance money on a single day. From the money received from the plaintiff, the defendants settled the bank loan on 20.03.2003. The bank officials, though promised to sanction new loan for an higher amount after clearing the existing loan, did not advance fresh loan. Thereafter, the defendants repaid a sum of Rs.7,58,375/- by cash and also gave two bullocks. But the plaintiff informed the defendant that still a sum of Rs.41,625/- due and payable and only on payment of the said amount, he will return the document to the defendants. On 16.05.2003, when the defendant again met the plaintiff, the plaintiff gave a statement of accounts. As per this statement of account out of Rs.41,625/-, after Rs.20,000/- paid on 09.05.2003, the plaintiff claimed a further sum of Rs.21,625/-. The request of the defendant to waive the said amount was declined. Infuriated, the plaintiff with intention to pressurize the defendant to part away huge money, the suit has been laid by misusing the document executed with intention to be a security for the loan transaction.