SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN Vs. S RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above three appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 29.11.1991 of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in Civil Suits No.95 of 1984, 170 of 1984 and 302 of 1989.

(2.) ALL the three suits were filed by the appellant herein. The suit in C.S.No.95 of 1984, which is the subject matter of O.S.A.No.12 of 1992, was one filed for the relief of passing a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 17.1.1981 directing the defendants 1 to 3 to execute the sale in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff or her nominees after receiving the balance consideration and in default to have the sale executed in the process of law through Court. C.S.No.170 of 1984, which is the subject matter of O.S.A.No.148 of 1999, was filed for the relief of passing a decree directing the defendant therein ie., V.K.P.Sunkavalli, the 4th respondent in C.S.No.95 of 1984 to return the sum of Rs. 1,25,000 being the amount received by him as commission with interest from the date of agreement i.e., 17.1.1981 till the date of realisation. C.S.No.302 of 1989, which is the subject matter of O.S.A.No.32 of 1995, was filed for passing of a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit properties.

(3.) THE suits were resisted by the defendants by filing written statement and contended that the suit for specific performance is misconceived, not maintainable on the plaintiff's own showing. THE plaintiff having committed breach of terms and conditions of the agreement dated 17.1.1981 and failed to perform her part of the agreement within the period agreed upon, is not entitled to sue for specific performance of the agreement. THE defendants further contended that time should be the essence of the contrac t and in view of admitted failure of the plaintiff to effect payment on the due date in accordance with the agreement, the defendants are entitled to cancel the agreement as per terms of the agreement and accordingly the said agreement was duly cancelled by defendants No.1 to 3. In any event, it was contended that there were laches on the part of the plaintiff in filing the suit for specific performance, inasmuch as the plaintiff deliberately pursued remedy by way of injunction without seeking for the relief of specific performance and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary relief of specific performance.