MARIMUTHU Vs. ELANGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows: THE suit property belonged to the defendants 1 to 4. Defendants 1 to 4 executed a sale agreement dated 5. 7. 1989 for consideration of Rs. 30,000 in favour of the plaintiff for which an advance amount of Rs. 10,000 was paid to the defendants 1 to 4 and the balance amount would be paid within two months and settled the sale agreement. On 28. 8. 1989, defendants 1 to 4 sent a notice to the plaintiff for the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 20,000 on or before 5. 9. 1989 for which the plaintiff sent a reply on 31. 8. 1989 to the effect that he was ready to settle the sale agreement and the defendants 1 to 4 were asked to come to the Sub Registrar Office, Kurinchipadi on 2. 9. 1989 and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the entire amount on the sale agreement. On 2. 9. 1989 defendants 1 to 4 gave a telegram to the plaintiff that they have cancelled the sale agreement. During the pendency of the suit, the 5th defendant-gnanambal purchased the suit property on 29. 11. 1989. Hence, as per the sale agreement the defendants had to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after adjusting the loan amount on mortgage deed.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the 5th defendant, it is stated as follows: "she was unaware about the execution of sale agreement dated 5. 2. 1989. This defendant purchased the suit property on a sale agreement from the defendants 1 to 4 for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 22,000 and paid an advance amount of Rs. 5,000 on 25. 9. 1989 and the balance amount of rs. 17,000 would be paid within three months. From the date of sale agreement, this defendant was in possession and made cultivation. IN fact, on 26. 10. 1989 plaintiff was attempting to encroach upon the suit land. This defendant has paid the entire amount on 29. 11. 1989 and got the sale deed in her favour. Hence, the suit may be dismissed. "

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants relying on the judgment reported in Peary v. Gauri, A. I. R. 1978 All. 318, and contended that in this case also there is no findings as to when the suit has been filed.