T MARY ISABEL Vs. SPECIAL OFFICER ALANDUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the Plaintiff in C.S. No. 14 of 1983, who filed the said suit for specific performance of the agreement, Ex.P1 dated 23-11-1975. Under the said agreement, the appellant agreed to purchase the property of an extent of 1.80 acres for a price of Rs.1,17,001/-. On the date of the agreement, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,001/- as advance. As per the terms of agreement, the appellant has to obtain the sale deed after getting approval from the Town Planning authorities in respect of the layout plan prepared by the appellant. The appellant also prepared the plan for layout and submitted an application on 20-02-1976 to the authorities. The said application was returned for payment of necessary fee. In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force on 03-08-1976 as such the appellant was informed that the layout plan cannot be approved or sanctioned. Inspite of the same, the appellant pursued with the authorities for getting the approval of the layout sanctioned and ultimately she failed to get the same. Thereafter, the appellant filed the suit in the year 1983.

(2.) The first defendant, who contested the suit died. Defendants 3 to 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. The first defendant filed his written statement stating that the appellant has to get the sanction from the Directorate of Town Planning within six months and to complete the sale in six months thereafter. Since the appellant failed to discharge her obligations and prolonged the matter with the authorities without any reference to the first defendant, the first defendant cannot be compelled to execute the sale deed in view of the long lapse of time. Apart from that, with the intervention of Land Ceiling Act, the suit agreement itself become void and unenforceable. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On the above pleadings, the learned Judge framed as many as five issues. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge found that the appellant was not entitled for the relief of specific performance of the contract for the simple reason that after the intervention of Land Ceiling Act, the agreement cannot be enforced. Further, the learned Judge held that the appellant, without any reference to the first defendant had simply dragged on the proceedings with the authorities and she never sought any extension of time from the first defendant. The learned Judge also felt that considering the lapse of long period i.e., from 1975 to 1983, the appellant is not entitled for the relief of specific performance of the contract and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come forward with this appeal.