PAVADAI PADAYACHI Vs. ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 623 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Panruti is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for specific performance against the respondent/defendant on the basis of an agreement for sale. The respondent resisted the suit on various grounds and therefore the learned District Munsif on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties and the evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments by both sides, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant preferred the first appeal before the subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in A. S. No. 183 of 1994. Learned Subordinate Judge had in turn after analysing the recorded evidence in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissed the appeal confirming the findings rendered by the trial court. Hence the second Appeal.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal may be stated briefly as under:-The appellant filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 31. 10. 1990 entered into between him and the respondent in respect of the suit property. The terms of the agreement are that the respondent agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 15,000/-and received Rs. 13,000/- on the date of the agreement and that the sale deed had to be executed within one year (i. e. ,) on or before 29. 10. 1991 after receiving the balance of rs. 2,000/ -. The appellant filed the suit contending that he paid the balance of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent on 7. 4. 1991 and that in spite of the notice dated 17. 4. 1991, the respondent failed to perform his part of the contract and execute the sale deed, though he had sent a reply with false allegations. However, the respondent resisted the suit on the basis that it was only a loan transaction, as he had borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from the appellant and executed the agreement for sale as per the direction of the appellant for advancing the said amount by way of loan. He has also denied the payment of the balance of sale consideration as alleged by the appellant.

(3.) THOUGH both the courts below held that the appellant has succeeded in proving the genuineness of the said agreement and passing of the consideration of Rs. 13,000/- on the date of the agreement, they disbelieved the evidence adduced on the side of the appellant to prove that the balance of sale consideration was paid on 7. 4. 1991. Hence, the courts below rendered the finding that the appellant has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as required under law and therefore the suit and the first appeal were dismissed.