SANKARA NARAYANAN Vs. PADMANABHA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant, whose defence plea in a suit for specific performance in respect of an immovable property was rejected by both the Courts below, is the appellant herein.

(2.) The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The properties, described in plain 'A' and 'B' Schedules belonged to the first defendant. When the first defendant was a minor, his mother Lakshmiammal entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on his behalf, on 30.9.1960, agreeing to sell 'A' Schedule property in consideration of Rs.3,000/-. The mother of the first defendant put the plaintiff in possession of 'A' Schedule property on the date of the agreement; but, the execution of the sale deed was postponed. Subsequently, when the first defendant became major, he rectified the said agreement and acknowledged his obligation to execute the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff in relation to 'A' Schedule property. The first defendant was also to pay another sum of Rs.7,000/-, and in lieu thereof, he agreed to sell 'B' Schedule property on 7.2.1977. He also put the plaintiff in possession of the said property. The written agreement dated 7.2.77 was marked as Ex.A1. The first defendant acknowledged and confirmed his obligation to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff not only in respect of 'A' Schedule property, but also in respect of 'B' Schedule property. Despite many a demand for the execution of the document, the first defendant was evading. In the meantime, the plaintiff learnt that the first defendant was negotiating for the sale of the suit properties with the second and third defendants. Under such circumstances, there arose a necessity to issue a notice on 29.4.1977 to the defendants, calling upon them to execute the sale deed in respect of 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties, since the consideration for the entire sale has already passed. The first defendant has also duly acknowledged the same in Ex.A1 agreement. The first defendant has caused a reply denying both the agreements. Hence, the instant suit was filed for the relief of specific performance.

(3.) The contesting defendants resisted the suit by stating that neither the mother of the first defendant nor the first defendant acknowledged the agreement in respect of 'A' Schedule property, nor has the first defendant entered into any agreement, as put forth by the plaintiff, under Ex.A1 on 7.2.1977; that it was a created one, and apart from that, his mother was not empowered to enter into any agreement on his behalf, as he was minor then; that the first defendant was well within his rights to convey the properties in favour of the defendants 2 and 3, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.