P.K.RAJENDIRAN Vs. P.A.VINAYAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit has been filed, against the judgement and decree, dtd. 18/4/2016, made in OS.No.121 of 2011, by the Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur.

(2.) The suit was filed for specific performance of the sale agreement, dtd. 19/11/2010, failing which, for a direction for execution of the sale deed through the Court and for permanent injunction and for costs.

(3.) The case of the Plaintiff, as set out, in the plaint is that the Defendant is the owner of the suit property. One Nithianandam, who was working in the Plaintiff Company, had introduced the Defendant. The Defendant had entered into a sale agreement, dtd. 19/11/2009, with the Plaintiff, to sell the schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.19,05,000.00 and the Defendant had received an advance amount of Rs.19,00.000 and it was agreed that at any time, on payment of the balance sale consideration, the sale should be completed. The Defendant had requested one week time to vacate the suit property and hand over the same to the Plaintiff. In the mean time, the said Nithianandam had committed misappropriation of Rs.41.00 lakhs in the Company of the Plaintiff and made a confession on 23/11/2009. From then, the attitude of the Defendant has completely changed and he did not come forward to perform his part of the contract, even though the Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. The Defendant caused a notice dtd. 20/12/2009, with vague allegations against the Plaintiff, alleging forgery. The Plaintiff had sent a reply notice, dtd. 2/1/2010 and the Defendant had sent a rejoinder notice, dtd. 7/1/2010. In the meanwhile, the Defendant attempted to alienate the suit property. Hence, the Plaintiff gave an objection to the concerned Sub Registrar on 30/6/2010. The Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dtd. 16/4/2010, calling upon the Defendant to perform his part of contract and the Defendant issued a reply with false allegations. Hence, the suit was filed for specific performance and permanent injunction.