S. K. MUTHUGAVI Vs. K. BANUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dtd. 13/8/2015 in O.S.No.119 of 2012, in and by which, in the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance, return of advance amount of Rs.4,70,000.00 alone has been ordered. Praying that the specific performance should have been ordered, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the owner of property measuring 1500 Sq.ft located at Mariammam Kovil Street, Goparasanallur, Kattupakam. The first defendant, through mediator, offered the same for sale and parties agreed for total sale consideration of Rs.15,50,000.00. The first defendant had mortgaged her property to one Batham Chand and she requested the plaintiff to part with an advance amount of Rs.2,70,000.00 to redeem the suit property so as to sell the same to the plaintiff. The defendant also assured that she will vacate the house and hand it over to the plaintiff. On 26/4/2012, the plaintiff parted away with the said sum of Rs.2,70,000.00 and also entered into a sale agreement on 26/4/2012. The first defendant also redeemed the suit property by a receipt, dtd. 26/4/2012 which was duly registered at the office of the SubRegistrar, Kundrathur. The defendants also handed over the original documents to the plaintiff. The first defendant promised the plaintiff that she will execute the sale deed on 25/6/2012. As per the sale agreement, the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,80,000.00 has to be paid within two months from the date of the sale agreement. On 3/5/2012, upon sudden request of the first defendant, the plaintiff again paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 and the transaction was duly endorsed on the reverse of the sale agreement.

(3.) On 22/6/2012, when the plaintiff visited the suit schedule property, he was shocked to know that the first defendant had not vacated the suit property as promised by her. However, she convinced the plaintiff that she will vacate the house as soon as possible. Therefore, the plaintiff handed over the two cheques, dtd. 23/6/2012 each for Rs.2,50,000.00 to the first defendant and the said transaction was also duly endorsed on the reverse of the sale agreement. However, on the same day, the first defendant came to the plaintiff's house and returned the two cheques and conveyed that the first defendant is not willing to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement and she also lodged a Police complaint on 25/6/2012. When the Police, after investigation, advised both the parties to approach Civil Court, the defendant again lodged a Police complaint against the plaintiff with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Poonamallee on 30/8/2012. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance and for permanent injunction on 5/9/2012.