NARASIMMAN AND ORS. Vs. R. SANTHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit has been preferred against the decree of the trial court, namely Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Ranipet dated 21.04.2010 dismissing O.S. No. 18 of 2007 filed for the relief of specific performance on the basis of an agreement for sale dated 25.11.1999. One Narasimman and the 4th appellant Pandurangan filed the above said suit for the relief of specific performance against Santhakumari, the respondent herein. After the disposal of the suit, the said Narasimman, who figured as the first plaintiff passed away. His legal representatives (appellants 1 to 3) and Pandurangan (4th respondent/2nd defendant) have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The original suit was filed contending that the respondent herein/defendant agreeing to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as advance and executed an agreement for sale dated 25.11.1999; that one Veera Raghavalu Reddy filed a suit in respect of the suit property as O.S. No. 787/1982, which was dismissed and the dismissal was confirmed by the High Court in A.S. No. 37/1994; that despite the fact that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the obligations under the agreement and issued notices on 21.10.2000 and 6.11.2002 to the respondent/defendant calling upon her to come and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/-, the respondent/defendant failed to comply with the demand made in the notices and also failed to issue any reply and that therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for specific performance.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant based on her contention that she never executed any sale agreement, much less an agreement on 25.11.1999 in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing to sell the suit properties; that she did not receive any amount from the plaintiffs as advance; that the agreement is a forged, concocted and fraudulent document created by the plaintiffs with ulterior motive of grabbing the property of the respondent/defendant, taking advantage of her helpless condition; that the suit property was worth more than Rs. 25,00,000/- and there was no necessity for the respondent/defendant to sell the same for a paltry sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-; there was also a civil litigation pending on the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet in A.S. No. 37/1994 and that absolutely there was no chance for the plaintiffs to enter into an agreement for purchasing the same from the respondent/defendant. It was contended further that when she was facing a number of vexatious litigations after the demise of her husband, the plaintiffs volunteered to help the respondent/defendant, lent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the year 1999 and got the signature of the respondent/defendant in blank papers and blank stamp papers at that point of time; that the suit came to be filed fraudulently making use of the same; that the plaintiffs were never ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement as alleged by them and that the suit should be dismissed. It was also contended therein that though the agreement incorporated a stipulation that the sale transaction should be completed on or before 28.02.2000, the plaintiffs did not approach the respondent/defendant and tender the balance sale price and seek execution of the sale deed; that on the other hand, on the last day of limitation, they filed the suit without sufficient court fee, got it returned and re-presented the same after five years; that the plaintiffs did not have the capacity at all to pay the balance sale price and the same was the reason why they filed the suit with insufficient court fee, got it returned and re-presented with necessary court fee nearly after five years from the date of original presentation of the plaint; that such a presentation could not be taken as proper presentation of the plaint so as to avoid the bar of limitation and that therefore, the suit should be dismissed. Since the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing any sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of third parties in O.S. No. 115/2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholingur and the same was withdrawn by the plaintiff, the present suit for specific performance would stand barred by the law under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.