M. MANICKA NAICKER Vs. VADIVELU NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.3.1992 rendered in O.S.No.33 of 1986 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram.

(2.) Tracing the history of the case, it comes to be known that the respondent herein had filed the suit in O.S.No.33 of 1986 before the Court below against the appellant herein for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 5.2.1983 receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,500/= and for costs on averments such as that the defendant agreeing to sell the suit lands, measuring 3.08 acres situated in Kooram village of Kancheepuram Taluk, for a sum of Rs.27,500/= had executed the registered agreement of sale dated 5.2.1983 and also received a sum of Rs.20,000/= as advance further agreeing to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.7,500/= from the plaintiff and execute the register sale deed; that the time fixed was till 5.2.1987; that since even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance of sale consideration of Rs.7,500/=, even before the time fixed, the defendant gave evasive replies, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 21.12.1984 calling upon the plaintiff to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration; that the defendant has given a reply notice with untenable grounds and the plaintiff has sent a rejoinder on 30.1.1985. The plaintiff would further submit that the allegation of the defendant in the reply notice that the plaintiff has executed a 'edhiradai cheetu' is false and if at all any such document is there, it must be a concocted one. On such averments, the plaintiff would pray for the relief, extracted supra.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, besides generally denying the allegations of the plaint, he would also submit that he has approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.20,000/= and agreeing to advance the same, since the stamp and registration expenses for execution and registration of the mortgage deed will be more, the plaintiff suggested that the defendant can execute and register an agreement of sale fixing the time to 5.2.1987 by which time the defendant should return the principal and interest at 24%; that on the same day, to evidence the defendants agreement, the plaintiff has executed one 'edhiridai cheettu' i.e. an agreement.