A S ARUKULAIMUTHU DIED Vs. K RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants in this appeal. THE 1st defendant/1st appellant, who is the father of defendants 2 to 5 died during the pendency of the appeal. Appellants 2 to 4 and respondents 2 to 5 were recorded as the legal representatives of deceased 1st defendant/Ist appellant.

(2.) THE above appeal was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 242 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, dated 1-3-1991. THE 1st respondent filed the said suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1-3-1995 relating to the suit property. Apart from other defences, the defendants contended that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to fulfil his obligations and that the time fixed under the agreement was not the essence of the agreement and that therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance. Apart from that, according to the defendants, the plaintiff was also guilty of delay and laches and in fact, the suit agreement was cancelled by the defendants in the first instance on the ground that the plaintiff has committed breach and that he was not ready and willing. THE court below decreed the suit for specific performance. THE defeated defendants preferred the present appeal.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, on 23.5.1985, the defendants have received a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- under Ex. A.2 as advance and part of sale consideration, which is also duly endorsed on the back of the agreement itself. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that the delay was purely on the part of the defendants. On 1-8-1985, the plaintiff had written a letter to the 1st defendant that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and called upon the 1st defendant to obtain the income-tax clearance certificate and get ready for the execution and registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff issued another notice on 7-10-86 calling upon the defendants to execute, and register the sale deed after receipt of balance of sale consideration. The defendants sent a reply on 19-10-1986 through their advocate stating that there was a prior agreement in favour of one Mrs. Saravanabhava to sell the property in question for Rs. 7 lakhs and that she has committed breach of the agreement and hence the same was cancelled. It is further stated that the plaintiff approached the defendants to purchase the property for the sale consideration of Rs. 7 lakhs but the plaintiff insisted the defendants to put the agreement of sale only for Rs. 4.50 lakhs and the balance of Rs. 2.50 lakhs must be paid by the plaintiff later. The allegation in the reply notice is totally false. The plaintiff sent a rejoinder on 5-11-1986 setting forth the true and real facts of the case. The defendants wantonly and deliberately evading to execute the sale deed with a view to get some more amount from the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit to direct the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee after receipt of the balance of sale consideration, and if the defendants fail to doso, the Court may be pleased to execute and register the sale deed.