MANGAI AND ORS Vs. M VENKATACHALAM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 4 to 6 before the Courts below in a suit for specific performance, are the appellants in this Second Appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties belong to the defendants and they had agreed to sell the same to the plaintiffs for a price of Rs.90,000/- and executed a registered deed of agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs on 05.3.1990. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.90,000/- out of which, the defendants received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as advance and agreed to receive the balance of Rs.75,000/- and to execute and register the sale deed conveying the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs within a period of three months, ie., on or before 04.6.1990. Pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiffs were also put in possession of the property by the defendants. The plaintiffs further contended that despite several requests to execute the sale in their favour, after receiving the balance of sale consideration, the defendants have been evading the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs issued a notice dated 02.5.1990 calling upon the defendants to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute the sale deed to which the defendants sent a reply notice contending several false allegations. Hence, the suit in O.S. No. 97 of 1990 was filed by the plaintiffs before the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.

(3.) The defendants have resisted the suit contending that the description or the suit property is incorrect, vague and not in existence. He further contended that the plot measuring 87 feet East - West and 15 feet North - South belongs to one Vijaya and the rest of the balance property belongs to defendants 2 to 6 and one Selvam. The defendants denied execution of the sale agreement and its contents and also the part performance of contract by delivering possession to the plaintiffs. It was the further case of the defendants that the third defendant had pressurized the other defendants to execute the mortgage deed in respect of portion of the property in S. No. 54/15 to raise a loan and save the lorry which he was using in his business and hypothecated to a financier and when the other defendants refused to sign, the third defendant emotionally threatened and compelled them to sign in various papers. Therefore, the defendants bona fide plead that they had only signed the mortgage deed and were never aware of the fact that it was an agreement to sell. It was further contended by the defendants that as per the Registered Will dated 01.7.1974 executed by one Rajammal, the defendants along with one Selvam are entitled to the suit property in common and since the said Selvam is not a party to the suit, the suit is not maintainable. Besides, the defendants had disputed the value of the property fixed under the agreement. The defendants 3 and 6 also had filed separate written statements and contested the suit.