K. SAMINATHAN Vs. PAPPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff is on Appeal. Challenge is to the dismissal of the Suit for Specific Performance laid by the Plaintiff in O.S. No.57 of 2014. The Plaintiff would claim that one Kandasamy S/o. Palanisamy, who owned the Suit property had agreed to sell the same for a consideration of Rs.40.00 lakhs and has entered into an Agreement of Sale with the Plaintiff on 6/1/2011. According to the Plaintiff, an advance of Rs.30.00 lakhs was paid on the date of the agreement and a period of two years was fixed for payment of the balance amount. In the interregnum, the agreement Vendor viz., Kandasamy died on 27/7/2012 leaving behind his mother Vembayee, Defendant in the Suit, to succeed him. The Plaintiff issued a notice seeking performance of the Agreement, dtd. 6/1/2011, for which a reply was sent by the Defendant denying the very agreement. The Plaintiff laid the Suit on 5/4/2014. The Plaintiff would claim that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and therefore he is entitled to a Decree for Specific Performance.

(2.) The Suit was resisted by the Defendant contending that the Suit Agreement itself has been created by the Plaintiff. According to the Defendant, the deceased Kandasamy was doing chit business and he had invested monies in the chits run by the son-in-law of the Plaintiff one Thangaraj in the name and style of Shri Kadeswara Chits. The details of the chit transactions are set out in the Written Statement and it was contended that the Plaintiff had, in collusion with his son-in-law, created the Agreement of Sale using the blank Stamp Papers left with the son-in-law at the time when the chit transactions were in vogue. The Defendant also claimed that the agreement was created after the death of Kandasamy to snatch the only residential house in which the Defendant is residing.

(3.) On the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues: