VIJAYA AMMAL Vs. RAMALINGA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order made in E.A. No. 251 of 2009 in E.P. No. 2 of 2004 in O.S. No. 166 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sub Court No. 1, Cuddalore allowing the application filed by the respondents herein under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. The petitioner herein as the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 166 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-Court Cuddalore for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the respondents herein as defendants. The said suit, after contest, came to be decreed on 29.6.2004, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and in default for execution of such sale deed by the Court. Three months time had been granted to the defendants for executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Consequent upon such judgment and decree, the petitioner filed execution petition in E.P. No. 2 of 2005 as the defendants/respondents failed to execute the sale deed within the time stipulated by the trial court after receiving the balance sale consideration from the petitioner.

(2.) In the above E.P. the respondents herein filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act praying for closure of the suit by holding that the suit agreement and decree stand rescinded by contending that a settlement was arrived between the parties and accordingly, the respondents have repaid the amount received from the petitioner with interest and the petitioner herein received the said money and executed a document dated 4.8.2008 thereby canceling the suit agreement. Therefore, in view of the cancellation of the suit agreement by the petitioner/plaintiff, the decree passed by the court below should be cancelled as it got rescinded. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner had executed a separate discharge receipt.

(3.) The petitioner herein as the respondent in the said application filed counter affidavit and contested the same. It is her contention that after the decree passed by the trial Court, the respondents did not execute the sale deed and as such the petitioner deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- in court and filed the execution petition. It is also denied by the petitioner that the respondents herein repaid the amount received as advance with interest and that the petitioner herein had executed a document canceling the suit agreement. The alleged cancellation deed dated 4.8.2008 is not a true, valid and admissible document in evidence. The petitioner further stated that she did not receive any amount nor issued any receipt nor executed any cancellation deed as alleged by the respondents. It is her categorical case that the so-called cancellation deed and receipt are forged documents, concocted by the respondents. It is further stated that the sale agreement is a registered one, which cannot be cancelled by an unregistered document.