MINOR RAVI BHARATHI Vs. P. BALASUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant is the revision petitioner herein. The respondents are the plaintiffs and they have filed O.S.No. 39 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Dharapuram against the petitioner herein and another for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 31.8.2005. Pending suit, the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC in I.A.No. 205 of 2010 to discard the suit agreement of sale, date 31.8.2005 and from marking the same on the reason that the same was unregistered and not properly stamped. The trial Court rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

(3.) The respondents herein filed the said suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 31.8.2005 by contending that the plaintiffs and the first defendant entered into the said agreement of sale in respect of the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/- and that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid and received as advance, agreeing to pay the balance sum at the time of execution of the sale deed, by specifically fixing the time limit as seven months. It is their contention that as per the terms of the agreement, they were put in possession of the suit property and however, the first defendant failed to execute the sale deed inspite of demand and on the other hand, he executed a sham and nominal sale deed in favour of the second defendant on 28.12.2005. According to the plaintiffs, the said sale deed executed on 28.12.2005 by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is not valid and they are ignoring the same, since the sale deed came to into existence during the pendency of the agreement of sale executed in favour of the plaintiffs on 31.8.2005.