U. VENKATESAN Vs. SUSILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in the Suit in O.S. No.18 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur is the Appellant in the above Appeal.

(2.) The Appellant filed the Suit in O.S. No.18 of 2011 for the Specific Performance of an Agreement of Sale, dtd. 4/6/2008 and for other consequential reliefs.

(3.) It is the specific case of the Appellant that the Suit property measuring an extent of 1.21.5 hectares [3 acres] in S. No.180/3 at Telur Village in Ariyalur Taluk is the absolute property of Defendants, and they entered into an Agreement of Sale, dtd. 4/6/2008 for selling the Suit property at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per cent. It is stated that an advance of Rs.2,00,000.00 was paid as acknowledged under the Agreement of Sale and that the parties had agreed to perform the Contract within four months from the date of the Agreement of Sale. It is the case of the Appellant that, on Enquiry, the Appellant came to know that the Government is looking for an extent of 100 acres for SIPCOT to establish an Industrial Center. It is further stated that the officials of SIPCOT have also inspected the Suit property as well as other properties to ascertain whether they are more suitable for their purpose. It is stated that on Enquiry by Plaintiff, he was informed that they have inspected four places and that one of the places would be acquired. It was therefore stated in the Plaint that the 2nd Defendant was requested to extend the time till such acquisition proposal is finalized by a Legal Notice, dtd. 30/9/2008. Stating that the Defendants after notice, started negotiating for the sale of the Suit property with third parties, it is contended that irrespective of finalisation of proposed acquisition on behalf of SIPCOT, the Plaintiff expressed his willingness to complete the sale, but the Defendants have failed to come forward to execute the Sale Deed as agreed. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that time is not the essence of Contract.