K.R.VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. D.PONNUVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner / first defendant seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.25 of 2011 on the file of Fast Track Court / Mahila Court, Namakkal, filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioner and the second respondent.

(2.) The above said suit was filed by first respondent against the petitioner and the second respondent seeking specific performance of sale agreement dtd. 18/10/2010, allegedly entered into by the first respondent with the petitioner for purchase of plaint schedule property and also for consequential injunction restraining the second respondent from proceeding with auction of the suit property.

(3.) According to the first respondent, the petitioner herein obtained loan from the second respondent by mortgaging the suit property and in order to discharge the mortgage debt, he agreed to sell the property to the first respondent and entered into suit sale agreement dtd. 18/10/2010. It was stated by the first respondent that as per the terms of the agreement, sale price was fixed at Rs.30.00 lakhs and on the date of agreement, he paid a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner by way of cash and another Rs.5.00 lakhs by way of cheque. Thus, on the date of agreement itself, a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs was paid to the petitioner as an advance and it was agreed, the remaining Rs.20.00 lakhs should be paid within three months. It was also claimed by the first respondent that he had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract all along. However, the petitioner failed to take any steps to discharge the mortgage debt with the second respondent and hence, the first respondent issued a lawyer notice to the petitioner on 13/1/2011 expressing his readiness and willingness to complete the sale transactions. The petitioner came up with a reply containing false allegations, as if the petitioner received a loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs from the first respondent and as a security for the said loan transaction, the suit sale agreement was executed. It was also averred by the first respondent that he was ready to pay the entire amount due to the second respondent and get the sale transaction completed. However, the petitioner failed to accept the same. In these circumstances, the first respondent was constrained to file a suit for specific performance.