ARUNACHALA MUDALIAR Vs. JAYALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent/first defendant owned the suit property. THE appellant / second defendant claims to have purchased the property bona fide on 22-04-1982. Ex-B4 is the sale deed and Ex-B5 is the sale agreement dated 25-11-1981 that is said to have preceded it. On the other hand, the first respondent/plaintiff claims to be entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement Ex-A7 dated 06-02-1982, between her and the first defendant. THE first defendant after filing the written statement remained ex parte. THE Trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Single Judge granted a decree.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaint, on 03-08-1981, an agreement was entered into between the first defendant and the husband of the plaintiff for conveying the suit property for a price of Rs.24,410/-. A notice dated 1.1.1982 was issued by the plaintiff's husband and a suit was filed. Other suits for injunction and other reliefs were filed by the parties herein against each other. To purchase peace, a Panchayat was convened and the well-wishers of the village persuaded the plaintiff and the first defendant to cancel the agreement dated 03-08-1981 and to enter into a fresh agreement, to purchase the property for a higher consideration. So the suit agreement, Ex-A7 dated 06-02-1982 was entered into. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.37,500/- and a sum of Rs.5,000/- is alleged to have been received as advance.

(3.) ON appeal, however, the learned single Judge held that the case of the plaintiff, that Ex.B.5 agreement and Ex.B.4 sale deed were born out of collusion between defendants 1 and 2 cannot be brushed aside as an unreasonable one. The discrepancies in the evidence of some of the defence witnesses persuaded the learned single Judge to come to this conclusion. As regards the case that the plaintiff had not withdrawn her suits as agreed and therefore, was not entitled to a decree, the learned Single Judge, held that the non-withdrawal of the suit was not fatal to the suit. The appeal was allowed on 20-08-1998. It appears to have been listed again on 12-12-1998, on which date, the learned single Judge granted time to the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount on or before 31.1.1999 to have the sale deed executed.