R. JEGADEESH Vs. M. AMUTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful Plaintiff in a Suit for Specific Performance is the Appellant before us.

(2.) Brief facts as set out by the Appellant, as Plaintiff, before the Trial Court are as follows: The Plaintiff entered into a registered Agreement of Sale, on 17/12/2013, to purchase the Suit Schedule property belonging to the First Defendant and her husband Mr. V. Manavalan. The total consideration arrived at was Rs.30,00,000.00 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) and on the date of agreement, the Plaintiff had paid an advance of Rs.20,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only), with the balance Sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000.00 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), being payable in six months time, by which time the parties agreed to conclude the transaction. According to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff tendered the balance consideration to the First Defendant and her husband-Manavalan several times, they were dodging the same. The Plaintiff sent a Legal Notice on 3/9/2014, which was received by the First Defendant on 5/9/2014. According to the Plaintiff, after receipt of the said Lawyer Notice, the First Defendant and her husband, Manavalan met the Plaintiff on 7/9/2014 and assured him that they would complete the sale within a short time and therefore, believing his words, the Plaintiff did not file a Suit for Specific Performance. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that even in the last week of November - 2014, the Plaintiff met the First Defendant and came to know that the other Co-Owner, viz., husband of the First Defendant - Manavalan had died on 19/11/2014. According to the Plaintiff, the First Defendant assured execution of Sale Deed in the first week of June - 2014. As the First Defendant's husband had just died and the Defendants 2 to 4 are the Legal Heirs of the said Manavalan, the Plaintiff chose not to persuade them for execution of the Sale Deed immediately. It is further pleaded by the Plaintiff that another Lawyer's notice was issued on 25/1/2015 to the Defendants, calling upon them to receive the balance Sale consideration and execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff. Despite receipt of the said notice, the Defendants did not come forward to give a reply, leave alone, execute the Sale Deed. Under such circumstances, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit seeking relief of Specific Performance with an alternate prayer, seeking refund of the advance of Rs.20,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) with interest at 12% per annum and for other reliefs.

(3.) The Defendants filed a Common Written Statement disputing the sale agreement. According to the Defendants, the First Defendant's husbandManavalan and the father of the Defendants 2 to 4 was doing real estate business and as he was in need of Rs.20,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) for business purposes, he approached the Plaintiff and only in that context, the Sale Agreement came to be executed. According to the Defendants, the First Defendant and her husband came to know that an Agreement of Sale Deed had been prepared, instead of a mortgage deed and when they confronted the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had convinced them stating that if the borrowed amount of Rs.20,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) is repaid, the Agreement of Sale would be cancelled and the original Sale Deed would be returned. Believing the said representation of the Plaintiff, the First Defendant and her husband signed the agreement. Meeting the allegations set out in the Plaint with regard to the Legal Notice, dtd. 3/9/2014, it is the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff assured Mr. Manavalan that it was only a formal action and the notice could be ignored. According to the Defendants, Late Manavalan had repaid Rs.16,00,000.00 (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) towards principal and only Rs.4,00,000.00 (Rupees Four Lakhs only) was to be paid. In fact, the Defendants also stated that even interest has been paid regularly. The Defendants, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Suit for Specific Performance.