M.SATHASIVAM Vs. N.GUNASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in the second appeal is the wife of the plaintiff in the original suit, who died during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court. Late Sathasivam, the sole plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.296/2004 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur for the relief of specific performance directing the respondents herein/defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property after receiving a sum of Rs.20,000/- being the balance sale consideration payable under the suit agreement for sale dated 26.06.2003.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the respondents herein/defendants, entered into an agreement for sale with the deceased plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and executed the sale agreement dated 26.06.2003 produced as Ex.A1 on the side of the plaintiff. Further averment made in the plaint is that, out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as advance and it was agreed that the respondents/defendants should execute a sale deed in favour of the deceased plaintiff by making payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- within 10 months from the date of the said agreement, which was also registered as document No.3935/2003 on the file of the District Registrar, Tiruppur. It was also averred in the plaint that though the deceased plaintiff was ready to complete the transaction, the respondents/defendants wanted extension of time and that hence a further advance of Rs.5,000/- was paid and a document of time extension was executed and registered as document No.3039/2004 on 23.04.2004. Contending that even thereafter the respondents/defendants were not prepared to complete the sale transaction, as a result of which, the deceased plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice on 02.09.2004 calling upon the respondents/defendants to execute a sale deed and that the defendants, besides failing to comply with the demand, defendants issued a reply notice dated 23.09.2004 containing false and untenable averments making and that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of obligation under the suit agreement for sale and on the other hand, the defendants were not ready and willing, the deceased plaintiff had prayed for the above said relief of specific performance of contract.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants contending in their written statement that they did not enter into any agreement with the deceased plaintiff for the sale of the suit property; that the transaction between the deceased plaintiff and the defendants was not one of the agreement for sale but was only a loan transaction that the deceased plaintiff financed a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the defendants in the month of December 2002, for which he demanded an interest at the rate of Rs.6/- per 100/- per month and in order to secure the payment of the usurious interest, the deceased plaintiff obtained the sale agreement and that the sale agreement was intended to be a security for the repayment of the loan.