JAILANI Vs. PADMAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.19 of 2008, dtd. 27/9/2010, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Pattukkottai.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff and the defendant is the respondent herein and the appellant has filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2008, on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Pattukkottai for the relief of specific performance and in alternative, to get refund of a sum of Rs.3,39,000.00 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with cost. The trial Court, after trial, dismissed the suit in respect of the relief of specific performance and decreed the suit with respect to the alternative relief of refund of a sum of Rs.3,39,000.00 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant with interest at 12% pa., from 28/1/2007 till the date of payment. Challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal suit.

(3.) The brief facts of the plaint reads as follows: The suit property belongs to the plaintiff, having purchased the same through sale deed, dtd. 17/8/1982 from one Kannan. The plaintiff and the defendant have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property on 26/12/2006 and the sale price was fixed at the rate of Rs.1.008,600.00 per Kuzhi and a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs was paid towards advance by the Plaintiff and three months time was fixed for the execution of the sale deed by paying the balance sale consideration. Thereafter, another sum of Rs.1.00 lakh and Rs.39,000.00 are paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 22/1/2007 and 28/1/2007 respectively and the same were duly endorsed in the agreement of sale. The Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in his favour. Despite repeated requests, the defendant was evasive in performing his part of contract and hence the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 3/3/2008, for which, the defendant sent a reply on 2/4/2008 with false averments. It is falsely stated therein that the time is the essence of contract, wherein, it is stated that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and that in the panchayat held in this regard, he had admitted his inability to pay the balance sale consideration and express the fact that he is ready to get back the advance amount. But there was no panchayat held as alleged by the defendant and prays for the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement, dtd. 26/12/2006 or in the alternative to get refund of a sum of Rs.3,39,000.00 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.