SENBAGASUNDARI Vs. KOTHANDAPANI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant whose defence though accepted by the trial court in a suit for specific performance, on being negatived by the first appellate forum, has brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.288 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Arakkonam, seeking the relief of specific performance on the basis of Ex.A1 agreement dated 12.9.1988, alleging that the plaint Schedule mentioned property belonged to the defendant that an agreement was entered into between the parties that the defendant agreed to sell the same in consideration of Rs.78,110/- that on the date of the agreement namely 12.9.1988, an advance of Rs.20,000/- was paid that only a xerox copy of the agreement was handed over to the plaintiff that the time within which the balance of consideration should be paid and sale deed should be executed, was stipulated in the agreement itself that a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid on 7.1.1989 that on 9.3.1989, another sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid that a sum of Rs.6,000/- was also paid on 28.5.1989 that on receipt of the same, the defendant has made endorsements on the back of the agreement that on 25.3.1989, the defendant has received Rs.19,000/- and executed a receipt in that regard that as could be seen from the receipt, the plaintiff has paid Rs.70,000/- that apart from that, the plaintiff has already paid Rs.1,000/-, and thus, the balance was only Rs.7,110/- that the plaintiff made many a demand for the execution of the sale deed by receiving the balance of consideration but, the defendant was evading that the plaintiff was also put in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement that under the circumstances, it is a case where Sec.53A of the Transfer of Property Act has got its application, since the agreement has been partly performed that subsequent to the agreement, the plaintiff has not paid any waram to the defendant that the plaintiff issued a notice on 23.3.1996 that in order to show his possession, documents have been filed that on receipt of the said notice, the defendant has issued a reply notice containing false allegations that under the circumstances, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for specific performance, and hence, it is filed.

(3.) IT was a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff alleging that there was an agreement entered into between the parties on 12.9.1988 in respect of a landed property wherein the consideration was fixed at Rs.78,110/- The original agreement was not filed before the Court, and only a xerox copy of the same was filed by the plaintiff. Out of the sale consideration of Rs.78,110/-, an advance of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the plaintiff and received by the defendant on that day.