ROBERT CORREYA Vs. P. KANAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dtd. 20/3/2019 passed in A.S. No.111 of 2013, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment and decree dtd. 2/9/2013 passed in O.S.No.367 of 2011, on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants are the absolute owners of the suit property. The first defendant on behalf of the defendants 2 and 3 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and received a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 as advance on 20/1/2011 and executed a receipt on the same day in favour of the plaintiff. Since there was some discrepancies in the title documents with regard to the extent of the properties agreed to sell, the plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to bring out rectification deeds. But for the reasons best known to the 1st defendant, he brought out the rectification deed only in respect of one sale deed dtd. 1/12/2006 and failed to bring out rectification deeds with regard to other title deeds. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to purchase the suit property provided all the relevant documents were made available by the defendants with clear title and extent. Since, the 1st defendant gave evasive reply in bringing out the rectification deeds as requested by the plaintiff, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 10/3/2011 for refund of entire advance money of Rs.5,00,000.00 received by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff with 24% interest from the date of receipt of the said notice till the date of payment. On 17/3/2011, the 1st defendant issued a reply notice admitting the receipt of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 paid by the plaintiff but refused to refund the said amount by stating that the plaintiff was in default. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the 1st defendant by stating that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff is only a name lender and son in law of one Gerard S. Nayagam, who is the intending purchaser. In spite of several demands made by the 1st defendant, the intending purchaser, without any reasonable cause, postponed the execution of the sale deed and left the Country. The 1st defendant has not committed any breach of contract. The intending purchaser did not have sufficient funds to purchase the suit property and instigated the plaintiff to file the present suit. Since the intending purchaser failed to perform his part of the contract, the 1st defendant has suffered mental agony and unable to sell the property. He would further submit that the plaintiff has purposely included the properties of the 2nd and 3rd defendant with ulterior motive and so he is not entitled to get any relief as against the defendants 2 and 3. Since the 1st defendant has suffered a huge loss, the amount paid by the plaintiff is liable to be forfeited. The 2nd and 3rd defendant submitted that there is no privity of contract between themselves and the plaintiff and there is no cause of action for the suit as against them and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.