NANJACHARY Vs. P. CHENNAVEERACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff inveighing the judgement and decree dated 27.9.2005 passed by the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, in A.S. No. 66 of 2004 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2003 recorded in O.S. No. 173 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur, were reversed allowing the First Appeal at the instance of the defendants.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the suit for direction to the defendants to execute the deed of conveyance regarding the suit property as per the agreement of sale dated 23.02.1993 within a specified time.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 and 2 had jointly agreed to sell the suit property, which is a house site measuring 80' East West and 40' North South with Mangalore tiled house in Andevanapalli Village and accordingly, entered into an agreement of sale on 23.02.1993 for a sum of Rs. 32,000/-.It is stated that at the time of agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards advance for sale consideration.The agreement was reduced to writing fixing the time for performance of the agreement as six months.It is alleged by the plaintiff that on 16.02.1983, the defendants 1 and 2 received a sum of Rs. 1,250/- from him and put him in possession of the suit property and executed a Muchalika as per which, the plaintiff will be in possession of the suit property for a period of three years within which time, the defendants have to repay the sum borrowed and take back the possession. It is further alleged that the defendants had not taken any steps to repay the amount and take back possession.In the meanwhile, after agreeing to sell the property to the plaintiff, the defendants had with an intention to defraud the plaintiff, wanted to sell the suit property in favour of the third defendant.Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to give a representation to the Sub-Registrar, Denkanikotta, not to register any sale deed with respect to the suit property.The further allegation of the plaintiff is that inspite of his several attempts calling upon the defendants 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in his favour, they had not heeded to his request and that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, the defendants were evading the same.It is stated that the third defendant, who is the daughter of the first defendant, had trespassed into the suit property when the plaintiff was away from his house one year prior to the filing of the suit.Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.