M R NATARAJAN Vs. GNANAMBAL AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O. S. No. 3850 of 1974 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner herein. He filed the suit for directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance of the purchase price of Rs. 7,900 after duly cancelling and registering the security bond with the Register of Assurance within the time that may be specified by the court.

(2.) There was a compromise both in O. S. No. 3050 of 1974 and in O. S. NO. 7657 of 1976. According to the said compromise, the defendant in the suit has to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property at the cost of the plaintiff on payment of a sum of Rs. 10,220 made up of Rs. 7,900 being the balance of sale price and Rs. 2320 being the arrears of rent. The amount has to be paid on or before 31-3-1979. The compromise decree further states that in default of payment of Rs. 10,220, on or before 31-5-1979, the suit will stand dismissed. The compromise memo was signed by the plaintiff, his advocate and the defendant's advocate and one S. Natarajan. The defendant has not signed the compromise memo. In pursuance of the said compromise memo the plaintiff filed E. P. 380 of 1980 for directing the defendant to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit house and in default, the executing court may be pleased to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under O. 21, R. 34, C.P.C.

(3.) The defendant filed a counter in the said execution petition, inter alia, alleging that there is no valid endorsement of compromise on the memorandum of the plaint, that the defendant has not agreed to the terms of the compromise, that the compromise without his signature is not binding on him, that the advocate appeared on his behalf was not authorised to enter into such compromise, that the compromise decree as such is not binding and that the execution petition has to be dismissed. He has further alleged that the condition of the compromise in respect of the payment of the money has not been complied with and as such the decree is not executable.