ALAGAMMAL Vs. M.S. RAJAGOPALA SERVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey the suit properties and for costs. The plaintiff sold the suit properties to the defendant for a Sum of Rs. 800 on 23rd July, 1965 under Exhibit B -1. It was registered on 24th July, 1965. On that date, there was an agreement of reconveyance entered into between the same parties whereby the defendant agreed to reconvey the suit properties to the plaintiff within a period of 2 1/2 years from the date of the said agreement on receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,375. This agreement of reconveyance has been marked as Exhibit A -1. On the basis of this agreement, the plaintiff called upon the defendant on 29th September, 1967 to execute a reconveyance deed for the sum of Rs. 1,375 and offered to pay the said sum. But the defendant replied refusing the said offer. The plaintiff, therefore, came forward with the suit for specific performance.

(2.) THE defendant raised substantially two Contentions. The first contention was that the period fixed was not 2 1/2 years but only two years and that the offer to pay and the notice calling upon the defendant to reconvey were after the period of two years and, therefore, not valid. The second contention was that there Was no proper tender of the amount at any time.

(3.) THE defendant appealed and before the learned Subordinate Judge, no argument was advanced on the question as to whether the period of 2 1/2 years in Exhibit A -1 was cut down to two years later on. The learned Judge examined the only contention that was advanced before him regarding the tender. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in International Contractors Limited v. : [1961]3SCR579, he held that there was a valid tender in the present case. In his view, when in the reply notice there was a repudiation of the agreement, there was a clear indication on the part of the defendant that if money was tendered, it would have been refused. He, therefore, considered that it could be clearly held in this case that the failure to tender the actual amount was not fatal. He thus concurred with the view of the learned District Munsif on this point. The appeal thus failed.