M.GOVINDASAMY (DIED) Vs. N.MUTHUSAMY (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.54 of 2004, dtd. 31/3/2007, on the file of District Judge, Karur.

(2.) The appellants 1 to 3 are the defendants and the deceased first respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No.54 of 2004, on the file of District Judge, Karur. The respondents/Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance against the appellants/defendants. After trial, the trial Court found that the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of specific performance and decreed the suit. Challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present appeal suit has been filed.

(3.) The brief facts of the plaint reads as follows: The appellants 1 to 3 herein are the defendants. The first defendant is the father of the second and third defendants. As per the partition deed, dtd. 3/9/1987, the suit properties belongs to the defendants. The defendants in the suit agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.7.00 lakhs and received a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs as advance. The time for execution of sale deed is fixed as two years and a sale agreement was entered into between them on the same date. On the date of sale agreement itself, the original documents such as partition deed, original patta and Encumbrance Certificate were handed over to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the defendants had delayed the same one way or other. On 13/11/2005, the plaintiff had sent a legal notice to the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and to register the sale deed in respect of the suit property. Though the notice was received by the defendants, they did not come forward to execute the same. Thereafter the defendants 1 and 2 sent a reply notice with false averments. It is not true to say that the sale agreement was executed as defendants have failed to pay the mortgaged amount for the plaintiffs' brother Selvaraj and plaintiff's wife Nallammal. It is not true to say that no advance amount was received as per the sale agreement and it was executed on compulsion. It is not true to say that the market value of the suit property is more than that of Rs.18.00 lakhs. It is not correct to say that the sale agreement was never executed. The plaintiff has sent a rejoinder to the reply notice of the defendants. There is no connection between the mortgage deed and the sale agreement. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for the relief of specific performance.