M. KRISHNAN Vs. C. JAWAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The defendant in the suit O.S.No.136 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli is the appellant herein. The respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit.

(2.) The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dtd. 21/2/2007 and the extension agreement dtd. 25/6/2009 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

(3.) The defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property measuring 17 Acres and 19 cents in Survey Nos.1471/B/1B and 1472/2B, Gangaikondan Village, Tirunelveli District. The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement dtd. 21/2/2007 with the defendant under which he agreed to purchase the suit schedule property from the defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,39,170.00. On the date of the agreement of sale, the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.5,10,000.00 and he agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,29,170.00 and complete the sale within a period of one month from the date of the agreement. The plaintiff entered into another agreement with the defendant on 25/6/2009 and as per the said agreement, time for completion of the sale was extended to enable the defendant to get patta for the suit schedule property. On the date of the agreement dtd. 25/6/2009, the plaintiff paid an additional advance of Rs.1,50,000.00 to the defendant and as per the agreement, the defendant agreed to obtain a patta in his name and on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.79,170.00, he agreed to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of one month thereafter. The plaintiff claims that he was always ready and willing to fulfil his obligations under the agreement of sale dtd. 21/2/2007 and the extension agreement dtd. 25/6/2009. According to him, since the defendant did not obtain the patta as agreed by him, the sale could not be completed. The plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant on 9/6/2012 calling upon the defendant to fulfil his part of the contract by executing a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of one month. According to the plaintiff, the defendant received the said legal notice on 11/6/2012, but he had not sent any reply. According to the plaintiff, only in those circumstances, he was constrained to file a suit for specific performance against the defendant.