P MANICKAM Vs. SELVARADHA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal has been preferred against the Decree and Judgment passed in O. S. No. 27/1991 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.

(2.) THE suit is for specific performance of the contract entered into between the parties under a sale agreement dated 29. 1. 1988 for a sum of Rs. 32,400/ -. On the date of agreement itself the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards advance and only a sum of Rs. 2,400/- remains to be paid towards the balance amount. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff demanded the Defendant to execute the sale deed, after receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 2,400/-, on many occasions. But the Defendant is evading to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff apprehends that the Defendant, with ulterior motive, is postponing the execution of the sale deed. Hence the suit for specific performance of the contract.

(3.) THE Defendant in his written statement would contend that the suit property belongs to the Defendant, but there was no agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and the Defendant on 29. 1. 1988 in respect of the suit property. The allegation that the Defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 32,400/- within three years from the date of agreement is false. The alleged agreement is forged one. The Defendant has not signed in the said agreement. The said agreement has been concocted by the plaintiff's husband Chakkaravarthy. The Defendant knows the plaintiff's husband. The Defendant is at Madras for the past thirty years. The Defendant used to bring plaintain in lorry from Madras to Vazhisothanaipalyam Village and sell it on whole sale basis. In that connection there has been dealing with the plaintiff's husband and the Defendant. In fact the Defendant has acted as a broker for the supply of plaintain. There has been misunderstanding between the Defendant and Chakkaravarthy, husband of the plaintiff, in respect of payment of commission. The friendship between the plaintiff's husband and the Defendant came to end in the year 1987 and there has been no connection between them thereafter. One Balaraman and Dhanasingh said to have attested the suit document have not attested the same. The Defendant has not signed in the said document. The aforesaid persons are close friends of Chakkaravarthy, the husband of the plaintiff. Chakkaravarty misused his position as a friend and retained the original deed of sale and did not return the document in a dishonest manner. Dhanasingh is the elder brother of Chakkaravarthy. Chakkaravarthy got the original sale deed from the Defendant representing to make arrangements for getting loan from the Government or Bank. The plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The allegation that the Defendant has been evading to execute the sale deed is false and it is not arisen for consideration at all. Chakkaravarthy wants to grab at the property of the Defendant. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.