VIMALAMMA Vs. DURAISAMY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Third defendant has filed this second appeal against the confirming decisions of the courts below.

(2.) The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract. It is the case of the plaintiff / respondent No.1 that he had entered into an agreement with Rajagopal Naidu, father of the defendants 1 & 2 for purchase of the disputed property for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. At the time of agreement dated 14.2.1991, the defendants 1 & 2 and their father had received a sum of Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiff approached the defendants on several occasion, but the execution of the sale deed was being delayed on some pretext or the other. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that Rajagopal Naidu and the defendant No.3 (appellant) had colluded with each other and a sham and nominal sale deed has been created in favour of the third defendant by Rajagopal Naidu and the second defendant. A lawyer s notice was issued calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. The defendants 2 & 3 replied the notice denying the execution of the agreement and stated that out of 66 cents, 43 cents had been purchased by the third defendant. After the death of Rajagopal Naidu, the suit has been filed. It has been stated by the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement wherein the execution of the agreement was admitted. It was also indicated that the said defendant was willing to complete the transaction. It was also further stated that the sale deed executed in favour of the third defendant was not binding on the first defendant.