A V KUPPUSAMY Vs. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein filed a suit, as plaintiff in O.S.No.141 of 1991, on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, for getting the decree of specific performance of the suit agreement, dated 13.07.1990, entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for a sale of the property.

(2.) The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are recapitulated below for better appreciation.

(3.) The defendant, by filing a written statement, admitted the agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendant, dated 13.07.1990, and thereby, the defendant received a sum of Rs.30,000/- and a further advance of Rs.30,000/-, on 08.09.1990, out of a sum of Rs.1,52,000/-, towards the sale of the property. In the agreement, both parties have agreed to complete the entire sale consideration within a period of six months. The plaintiff was well aware that there was no kind of encumbrance whatsoever over the property nor the defendant has promised the plaintiff that he would get the premises vacated. The defendant wanted to sell the property to raise funds for her son's educational purpose and as the fund was needed urgently, she had agreed to sell the property for a lower sum than the market value. The defendant sent a legal notice through her counsel, but she did not get any reply for completion of demands, that shown that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the terms of the contract. Further, it is stated that there was no agreement to obtain the encumbrance certificate or to get the third parties vacated from the premises. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance because of latches on his part.