K. DORAIRAJ Vs. KUPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is filed under Sec. 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC as against the Judgment and Decree dtd. 20/12/2024, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet in OS. No. 241/2006, dismissing the suit for specific performance, filed by the Plaintiff.

(2.) The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant in brief contended that, after fixing the sale consideration for sale of the suit schedule property owned by the 1st defendant in the suit i.e.. Kuppammal (since deceased), at the rate of Rs.42,000.00 per cent and after receiving an advance of Rs.13,50,000.00 (on various dates), the 1st defendant. Kuppammal, did not come forward for execution of the Sale Deed, even though the Appellant/ Plaintiff was all along ready and willing. The same therefore, necessitated filing of the suit for specific performance.

(3.) It is the contention of the Appellant/Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed and evaded execution of the same, as the 1st defendant who undertook to produce the patta in her name, evidencing the physical availability of the land to the extent of 69 cents, did not produce the patta. The 1st defendant on various occasions, when the plaintiff approached, stated that she was busy with the marriage of her granddaughter (daughter of the 4th Defendant in suit, Mr. Radhakrishnan, the DW1) and after completion of the same, she will execute the Sale Deed.