KANCHEEPURAM KAMAKSHI AMMAN SILK HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO OPERATIVE PRODUCTION AND SALE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. YAMUNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, which is a co-operative society has filed this appeal. THE suit is one for specific performance of an agreement dated 26.10.1976 under Ex.A-1 entered with the plaintiff by one Radhakrishnan. Under the terms of the agreement, the consideration was fixed as Rs.1,04,000 and an advance of Rs.5,000 is said to have been paid. THE time for completion of the transaction was agreed to be three months. In other words, it was to be completed before 25.1.1977. On 16.11.1976, the said Radhakrishnan gave a letter to the plaintiff stating that he signed the agreement without knowing the contents when the members of the society compelled him to sign the same. According to him, he was not having a steady mind at that time and after he returned to his house, the members of his family expressed the dissent to the transaction. He prayed for cancellation of the agreement.

(2.) ON 20.11.1976, the Board of Directors passed two resolutions, one deciding to apply for sanction to purchase the property to the concerned authority viz., The Director of Handlooms and Textiles and the other to apply for loan from the Provident Fund kept in deposit with the Central Co-operative Bank, Kancheepuram. Radhakrish-nan wrote another letter on 7.12.1976 marked as Ex.B-2 on the same lines as Ex.B-1. There was a reply by the Society to Radhakrishnan on 17.1.1977 through its lawyer. It was stated in the reply that the Society was ready and willing to have the sale deed completed and pay the balance of the sale price. He was called upon to fix and intimate a date to the society for the execution and registration of the sale deed. Radhakrishnan sent a reply in Ex. A-4 on 28.1.1977 stating that the agreement was executed when he was not sober. He stated that the agreement could not be completed and he would not execute a sale deed. The society kept quiet after receiving the said reply.

(3.) THE defendants raised several contentions. THE main contention was that the agreement was not entered into voluntarily by Radhakrishnan and at the time of agreement, he was under the influence of alcohol and his senses were not in his control. It was also alleged that he was steeped in debts and owing to pressure of debts and unhappiness, he became an addict to drinks. It was further alleged that the office-bearers of the society compelled him to execute the agreement and the property was worth much more than the consideration stated in the agreement. THE entitlement of the plaintiff to the relief of specific performance was also challenged on the ground that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform its part of the contract and had abandoned the contract.