CHINNASELLAN Vs. SANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who got a decree before the trial Court, viz., District Munsif, Krishnagiri, by judgment and decree dated 12.07.2006 in O.S. No. 166 of 1995, which was set aside by the lower Appellate Court, viz., Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, in A.S. No. 82 of 2006 vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2008, has projected the instant Second Appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, who claims to be the original owner of the suit lands, on 10.9.1993, he executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant conveying the suit lands for a consideration of Rs.11,000/- on her promise that she would execute an agreement deed to reconvey the suit lands on payment of the amount within a period of three years. It is stated that the plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs.10/- towards advance and the defendant agreed that on payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,990/- on or before 10.9.1996, she shall execute the sale deed conveying the suit schedule land in his favour and accordingly, she executed a reconveyance agreement deed on 10.09.1993 itself. The main allegation of the plaintiff is that though he was ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.10,990/- even in the month of March 1995 and despite his attempt on several occasions, the defendant was not prepared to execute the sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff also issued a notice dated 15.5.1995 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed and since the defendant did not turn up, he filed the suit for specific performance of the contract.

(3.) Resisting the suit, the defendant filed written statement denying all the allegations mentioned in the plaint. According to the defendant, she purchased the suit schedule property on 10.9.1993 and registered the sale deed in her name and she was in possession of the suit property from the date of sale deed. Denying the re-conveyance agreement alleged to have been entered into between her and the plaintiff, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.