R. PANNEERSELVAM Vs. DHARUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree of the Court of Subordinate Judge at Harur in A.S.No.22 of 2012 dtd. 20/9/2012 in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of District Munsif at Harur in O.S.No.343 of 2006 dtd. 25/11/2011.

(2.) O.S.No.343 of 2006 is a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dtd. 28/10/2005. The case of the plaintiff is that his son, Dharuman, 1st defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule mentioned property for a sum of Rs.60,000.00. To that effect they entered into an agreement for sale on 28/10/2005 and the same was registered. On the basis of this agreement, a sum of Rs.50,000.00 was paid as advance leaving a balance of Rs.10,000.00. It was agreed that the balance amount will be paid and the sale deed will be registered. The time period granted under the agreement was one year.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, he approached the vendors to alienate the property on several occasions but they were evading the same. Being left with no other option, he issued a telegram to the vendors on 23/10/2006 and called upon them to be present for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Harur on 26/10/2006. Despite this notice and demand, as the defendants did not execute the sale deed, being left with no other option, he filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The suit was taken on file as O.S.No.343 of 2006. Just before the presentation of the plaint, Annamalai, the second defendant passed away and therefore, his legal heirs, namely his wife and three daughters were impleaded as Defendants 2 to 5.