M GOURIAMMAL Vs. SOUNDARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2004 made in O.S.No.314 of 2004 in and by which Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore dismissed the appellant/plaintiff's suit for specific performance.

(2.) DEFENDANTS are the owners of the property measuring an extent of 1.45 acres in S.F.No.11, Krishnarayapuram village, Coimbatore Taluk. The 1st defendant is the father of defendants 2 and 3. DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.A.1) with the plaintiff on 14.4.1999 agreeing to sell the suit property at the price of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre i.e., for a total sale consideration of Rs.17,40,000/-. On the date of agreement of sale, the 1st defendant has received an advance of Rs.4,00,000/-, which is incorporated in Ex.A.1.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, in the trial Court, the relevant issues were framed ON behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1. To prove the means of plaintiff, one Arumugam was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. ON behalf of the respondents/defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Assistant from Sub Registrar's Office was examined as D.W.2. Exs.B1 to B.15 were marked. Exs.C.1 to C.4 were marked. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated period of six months. Accepting the defence plea, the trial Court further held that the time of six months stipulated in Ex.A.1 - sale agreement was mandatory and pointing out that the suit was filed only on 11.10.2002, which was just three days prior to expiry of three years from the date of Ex.A.1 - agreement of sale, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was not ready to perform her part of the contract and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of decree for specific performance.