MANICKAM Vs. S A RAMASWAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2000 in Appeal No.773 of 1985 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No.1111 of 1979, dated 6.5.1985 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, for specific performance of an agreement dated 2.4.1976. 2.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the suit. THE appellant is the plaintiff in the suit.

(3.) MR.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, contends that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant herein was delaying to vacate the rear portion of the suit property and to handover the same to the plaintiff, even though Second Appeal No.1606 of 1973 was disposed of as early as on 28.4.1977, and the non-joinder of Palanimuthu is not fatal as he had already given up the rights over the suit property in favour of the defendant. 7.2. MR.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, also brought to our notice that the plaintiff was paying rent at Rs.600 per mensem till the execution of the sale deed, to show this bona fide. 7.3. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff invited our attention to the evidence that the tenants were vacated only in January, 1979 and immediately thereafter, the plaintiff deposited the entire balance amount in bank on 24.3.1979 as evident from Exs.A-39 and A-40 and proved his bona fide as well as his readiness and willingness. MR.S.V. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2408 contends that the delay in filing the suit cannot be a valid reason to deny the relief of specific performance.