MURUGESA NAICKER DIED Vs. GOVINDARAJA NATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST Defendant is the Appellant. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the Sub Court, Cuddalore in A. S. No. 167 of 1992 Dated: 15. 09. 1993, D. 1 has preferred this second appeal. Under the impugned Judgment, the First Appellate Court has confirmed the Judgment of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore in O. S. No. 202 of 1989 (Dated: 11. 03. 1992) granting Decree for Specific Performance in favour of the Plaintiffs and directed the first Defendant to execute the sale deed.

(2.) THE suit property relates to House Site in T. S. No. 1616 of Cuddalore Sudarsanam Street. Case of plaintiffs is that D. 1 has entered into an agreement of sale on 14. 04. 1980 for Rs. 10,700/ -. The suit property was the subject matter of litigation in the earlier suit and proceedings in S. A. No. 1175 of 1966. Possession was about to be taken through the process of Court. Sale consideration of Rs. 3,000/- paid as advance under the earlier agreement of sale dated 03. 10. 1971 was adjusted towards the sale consideration under the suit agreement. Further, on the date of agreement of sale, plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to D. 1 besides another sum of Rs. 700/- received by D. 1 already; in all total sum of Rs. 4,700/- was received by D. 1 treated as advance for the sale consideration. Balance of Rs. 6,000/- alone remained to be paid. Under the agreement, D. 1 has agreed to execute the sale deed within one month from the date of taking delivery of possession through Court. D. 1 received further sum of Rs. 2,001/- on various dates in the year 1983. D. 1 in collusion with D. 2 to D. 4 seems to have taken delivery of the property outside the Court in the Second Week of February, 1989. Plaintiffs are always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and obtain the conveyance from the Defendants. According to plaintiffs, a sum of Rs. 3,999/- alone is payable. Further the plaintiffs have expressed their willingness to pay the entire amount of balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,000/- if the Court finds that the sum of Rs. 2,001/- cannot be deducted from out of the sale consideration. Since the first defendant has not executed the sale deed and performed his part of the contract, plaintiffs have filed the suit for Specific Performance.

(3.) DENYING the plaint averments, D. 1 has filed the written statement denying the validity and genuineness of the suit agreement dated 14. 04. 1980. D. 1 has already entered into an agreement of conveyance with second plaintiff under Written Agreement dated 03. 10. 1971. Since the second plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and have the sale deed executed, as per the terms of that sale agreement, the agreement of sale dated 03. 10. 1971 stands cancelled. The suit agreement is brought into existence in the name of the plaintiffs as they are powerful and influential. The said agreement is a sham and nominal document and as such invalid and unenforceable.