K.SARANGAPANI Vs. K.THANGAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. He had filed the suit against the respondent for the relief of specific performance based on an agreement dated 13.08.1986 alleged to have been executed by the respondent herein/defendant in favour of the appellant herein/plaintiff agreeing to convey the suit properties for a sum of Rs.16,500.00 within 7 years from the date of agreement. It was the further contention of the appellant/plaintiff before the trial Court that out of the three items of suit properties, the first item belonged to one K.K.Subramania Mudaliar of Melapulam village and that he agreed to sell the same to the appellant herein/plaintiff, but since the appellant herein/plaintiff had no money at that point of time, the defendant requested the appellant/plaintiff, who is none other than his brother, to purchase the same with the understanding that the respondent/defendant should reconvey the said property to the appellant herein/plaintiff. It was also contended by the appellant herein/plaintiff before the trial Court that the suit items 2 and 3 belonged to the appellant herein/plaintiff and the same were sold to the respondent herein/defendant on 24.06.1986 with an understanding that the same would be reconveyed by the respondent/defendant to the appellant herein/plaintiff. In short, the contention of the appellant herein/plaintiff happened to be that items 2 and 3 of the suit properties originally belonged to the appellant herein/plaintiff and they were sold by the appellant herein/plaintiff under a sale deed dated 24.06.1986 to the respondent herein/defendant and pursuant to the said sale, the respondent herein/defendant was put in possession of the same; that Item No.1 of the suit properties originally belonged to one K.K.Subramania Mudaliar, who offered to sell the property to the appellant herein/plaintiff; that the appellant herein/plaintiff who did not have the funds to purchase the same, made the respondent herein/defendant to purchase the same from K.K.Subramania Mudaliar with the understanding that the properties sold by the appellant herein/plaintiff under the sale deed dated 24.06.1986 and the property purchased from K.K.Subramania Mudaliar would be reconveyed to the appellant herein/plaintiff and that in accordance with the said understanding, an agreement for reconveyance was executed by the respondent herein/defendant in favour of the appellant herein/plaintiff on 13.08.1986 undertaking to reconvey the suit properties to the appellant herein/plaintiff after getting a sum of Rs.16,500.00 being the amount spent by the respondent herein/defendant towards the sale consideration and the expenditure incurred for the purchases made by him. It was the further contention of the appellant herein/plaintiff that 5 years after the execution of the suit sale agreement, he approached the respondent/defendant and asked him to execute the sale deed after receiving the consideration quoted in the agreement, but the respondent/defendant evaded the same stating that he would execute the sale deed before the time fixed in the suit sale agreement; that since the respondent/defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed in accordance with the terms of the sale agreement before the expiry of the period stipulated in the sale agreement, a notice was sent on 08.08.1983 which evoked no response from the respondent/defendant and that therefore, the appellant/plaintiff had to approach the Court for the relief of specific performance.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the respondent herein/defendant by filing a written statement denying the suit agreement relied on by the appellant herein/plaintiff. The respondent herein/defendant had admitted the fact that the first item of the suit properties originally belonged to one K.K.Subramania Mudaliar and from him he purchased the same under a sale deed dated 13.08.1986 and that similarly, items 2 and 3 of the suit properties originally belonged to the appellant herein/plaintiff and the same were sold to the respondent herein/defendant under a sale deed dated 24.06.1986. The rest of the plaint allegations especially the alleged undertaking to reconvey the property purchased by him from the appellant herein/plaintiff under a sale deed dated 24.06.1986 and to reconvey the property purchased by him from K.K.Subramania Mudaliar to the plaintiff were stoutly denied by the respondent herein/defendant. He had also denied the execution of the alleged suit agreement for sale dated 13.08.1986. Denying all other allegations found in the plaint, the respondent herein/defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THE appellant herein/plaintiff prosecuted an appeal before the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.109 of 2006 unsuccessfully which was dismissed by the lower appellate Judge confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dated 28.01.2008. The learned lower appellate Judge reappreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Court regarding the genuineness of the suit agreement did not warrant any interference. The learned lower appellate Judge also came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Court regarding the other issues also did not warrant any interference. By a reasoned judgment, based on which the decree of the appellate Court has been drawn up, the appeal suit was dismissed confirming the decree of the trial Court by which the suit of the appellant herein/plaintiff for specific performance had been dismissed. However, the learned appellate Judge chose to direct the parties to the appeal to bear their respective costs in the appeal.