C. VIVEKANANDAN Vs. M. DHANAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, namely, the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli dtd. 30/11/2016 passed in A.S.No.112 of 2012. The Lower Appellate Court in its judgment and decree dtd. 30/11/2016 passed in A.S.No.112 of 2012 has confirmed the judgment and decree dtd. 29/7/2004 passed by the Trial Court, namely, Principal Sub court, Tiruchirappalli in O.S.No.259 of 2004. The appellant is a third party to the suit O.S.No.259 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli and he was not arrayed originally as a defendant in the said suit. The suit O.S.No.259 of 2004 was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against the second respondent/defendant seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale dtd. 14/5/1998 executed by one Natesan. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit O.S.No.259 of 2004 and the appellant, who is a third party, is described as "Appellant/Third party".

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.259 of 2004 is that the defendant is the adopted son of Natesan, who is the owner of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, Natesan agreed to sell the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dtd. 14/5/1998 for a sum of Rs.1,18,000.00 and on the date of the agreement, a sum of Rs.75,000.00 was paid as advance by the plaintiff to the said Natesan. It is further contended by the plaintiff that Natesan died and the defendant, who is the adopted son, on the very same day of the death of Natesan demanded from the plaintiff a further sum of Rs.15,000.00 towards funeral expenses. According to the plaintiff, the same was also paid to the defendant and subsequently, further sums were also paid by the plaintiff towards the sale consideration for the purchase of the suit schedule property as agreed by Natesan under the agreement of sale dtd. 14/5/1998. According to the plaintiff, he has paid the entire sale consideration as per the agreement of sale dtd. 14/5/1998. He has stated that despite repeated reminders and demands, the defendant, who is the adopted son of Natesan who had entered into an agreement of sale dtd. 14/5/1998 with the plaintiff, did not come forward to execute the sale deed. In such circumstances, the suit O.S.No.259 of 2004 came to be filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking for specific performance of the agreement of sale dtd. 14/5/1998.

(3.) The defendant was set ex parte by the Trial Court and an ex parte decree dtd. 29/7/2004 came to be passed in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No.259 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli and accordingly the relief of specific performance was granted in favour of the plaintiff.