N K GOPLAN Vs. THIMMATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the concurrent judgments of both the courts below in and by which the suit filed by one N. K. Gopal for specific performance of agreement of sale executed by the defendants was dismissed, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the suit filed by the plaintiff are as follows. The defendants executed an agreement of sale in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property for Rs. 24,000/= on 25. 9. 1985 after receiving a sum of Rs. 6000/= as advance and stipulating seven months time for completion of sale transaction besides some other incidental clauses. The plaintiff was always having means to pay the agreed sale consideration and always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and yet, the defendants were not ready and willing to execute the sale deed as agreed under the agreement of sale. So, the plaintiff issued advocate's notice on 12. 4. 1986 demanding the compliance of the sale agreement. The defendants, in turn, sent a reply notice on 21. 4. 1986 with false allegations. However, the plaintiff sent a rejoinder to the defendants on 23. 4. 1986 with true allegations. Even then the defendants did not come forward to perform their part of contract and thereby the plaintiff happened to file the suit.

(3.) BRIEF allegations of the written statement filed by the defendants can be stated as follows. It is true that the defendants entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff for selling their ancestral properties for Rs. 24,000/= and executed the agreement of sale and received Rs. 6000/= as advance. It is true that within seven months, the sale should be completed, but, it is not true that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In fact, the plaintiff had no sufficient funds to pay the agreed amount within the stipulated time of seven months for the purpose of completing the sale transaction. Further, the fact remains that the defendants, as soon as they received advocate's notice from the plaintiff, issued reply notice on 21. 4. 1986 and they were ready to have the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. In the reply notice sent by the defendants, it was specifically indicated and intimated to the plaintiff that though the seven months stipulated comes to an end on 25. 4. 1986, they are ready to execute the sale deed within three more days and the date of 28. 4. 1986 was fixed as last date for execution of the sale deed and that if the plaintiff fails to get the sale deed on or before 28. 4. 1986, the agreement of sale itself would get cancelled. Even then the plaintiff was not prepared to perform his part of contract of getting completion of the sale deed as agreed in the sale agreement. In fact, the plaintiff alone was not ready to perform his part of contract and he was delaying the completion of sale by raising so many allegations and doubts in connection with the suit in O. S. No. 404 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Sathyamangalam in respect of pathway and about the title and possession of the defendants upon the suit property, etc. , and thereby the suit is liable to be dismissed.