D. HARILAL Vs. K. SAMPATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 1987, on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, is the appellant. Pending the appeal, the plaintiff died and hence his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 2 to 5. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978, and the suit was dismissed and as against the same, this appeal is filed.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

(3.) The first defendant filed a statement denying the agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978, between himself and the plaintiff. He also denied the receipt of advance of Rs.41,000/- under the agreement of sale. He denied the allegation that he entered into an agreement of sale for the purpose of paying the balance sale consideration to Pattabiraman as per the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1977. Nevertheless, he admitted that he filed a suit against Pattabiraman for specific performance and the suit was decreed on 27.3.1982, and pursuant to the decree, he deposited the balance sale consideration and got the sale deed executed by the Court and also got possession of the property on 6.4.1983. The plaintiff and the first defendant were moving closely and taking advantage of their intimacy, the plaintiff got the signature of the first defendant in blank papers and the agreement of sale must have been fabricated by using one such papers. Even assuming that the agreement of sale was entered into by the first defendant with the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance and the suit is also barred by limitation. The plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the plaintiff never asked the first defendant to execute the sale deed as per the agreement of sale, and only after receipt of the notice sent by the plaintiff, the first defendant came to know that the agreement of sale was fabricated by the plaintiff and suitable reply was given. The plaintiff has not come out with full particulars and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance and the suit is liable to be dismissed.