T.RAMAN Vs. A.DEVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 and 3 in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiff is the first respondent and the second defendant is the second respondent. Devaraj, the first respondent /plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.114 of 1998 on the file of Sub-Court, Kallakkuruchi against the appellants and the second respondent for the relief of specific performance based on an alleged agreement for sale dated 27.01.1998. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs by its judgment and decree dated 02.12.2003. The first respondent herein/plaintiff preferred an appeal on the file of the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kallakkuruchi, against the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit and the said appeal was taken on file as A.S.No.109 of 2004. The learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi, after hearing, allowed the appeal and granted the relief of specific performance by directing the first appellant herein and the second respondent herein/defendants 1 and 2 to execute a sale deed in favour of the first respondent herein/plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the suit agreement for sale in respect of the suit property after getting a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the balance amount of sale consideration and granted two months time for the said purpose. The said judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dated 09.10.2007 made in A.S.No.109 of 2004 is challenged in the present second appeal.

(2.) Second defendant Kandhammal is the wife of first defendant Raman. Plaintiff Devaraj is the brother's son of the first defendant. The third defendant Davamani is the person who has purchased 31 cents of land being a part of the property described as 5th item in the plaint schedule. According to the plaintiff, all the properties described in the plaint schedule belong to Raman and his wife Kandhammal, namely Defendants 1 and 2 and they entered into an agreement with the plaintiff Devaraj on 27.01.1998 for the sale of the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- and received a sum of Rs.40,000/- as advance. Further case of the plaintiff is that though the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- within the time (6 months) stipulated in the agreement, the defendants 1 and 2 were reluctant and were evading the same; that at last the plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 were trying to cheat the plaintiff and execute a sale in favour of a third party and that hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit against the defendants 1 and 2 for the relief of specific performance. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that since a part of the suit properties has been sold by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant subsequent to the date of execution of the suit sale agreement, the third defendant is also bound by the agreement dated 27.11.1998 and hence the third defendant has also been made a party to the suit so that a decree binding all the defendants, including third defendant, could be passed.

(3.) The first defendant Raman has resisted the suit contending that the suit sale agreement dated 27.11.1998 is a fabricated and forged one and that the signature found in the said agreement is not that of the first defendant. It is his further contention that since he and the second defendant had no issues, he wanted the second defendant to give her consent for his second marriage, pursuant to which alone the plaintiff and the second defendant colluded together, created the suit sale agreement and filed the suit and that hence the suit should be dismissed with costs.