R. MANOHARAN Vs. R.RAMASAMY (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned II-Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in O.S.No.35 of 2003, dtd. 10/3/2015 in and by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance was dismissed by the Trial Court.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property being undivided share in the lands comprised in S.Nos.242/5B and 242/2A Karaiputhur Village, Palladam Taluk, Trippur District. On 27/1/1995, the defendants entered into a sale agreement which was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar, Palladam, agreeing to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.11.00 Lakhs and received an advance amount of Rs.5.00 Lakhs. In view of the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.85 of 1981, the sale is said to be completed after the orders passed finally in the suit, by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.6.00 Lakhs. Even though the said suit was decreed on 7/5/1996, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 20/1/1998, and thereafter, the present suit was filed in March 1999, for specific performance of the sale agreement dtd. 27/1/1995.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement in which they denied the sale transactions. It is their case that they borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 for the marriage expenses in the family. Instead of executing the mortgage deed, to evade a stamp duty, a sale agreement was entered into. Even the sale agreement was hastily registered without giving ample time to go through the contents of the agreement. Even though the sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 was borrowed, the plaintiff greedily entered into the sale agreement as if a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs was paid as advance and registered the same. The suit which is alleged to be pending was over and as a matter of fact, the first appeal is also over and the matter is pending on the second appeal. The cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit is immediately after the passing of the decree, but the suit was filed belatedly. But, however, since the sale agreement says it is after the final order passed in the suit, then there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit.