DHANALAKSHMI MILLS LTD. Vs. R.KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal suit is to the Judgment and Decree dated 30.6.2014, passed in O.S.No.881 of 2008, by the II Additional District Court, Tirupur

(2.) The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, has instituted O.S.No.881 of 2008 on the file of the trial court, praying to direct the defendants to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of sale agreement dated 10.1.2004, wherein the present appellant and the remaining respondents have been shown as defendants.

(3.) The material averments made in the plaint are that the suit property is the absolute property of the first defendant. The plaintiff is doing real estate business. The company of the first defendant has become sick and has been referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi. The defendants 2 and 3, as strategic investors, have entered into a sale agreement dated 10.1.2004 with plaintiff and thereby agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The total sale price of the suit property has been fixed at Rs.9,75,00,000/-. The defendants 2 and 3 have agreed to receive a sum of Rs.1 Crore by way of an advance. The plaintiff has to pay a further sum of Rs.4,75,00,000/- within one month from the date of agreement. The defendants 2 and 3 should obtain requisite consent orders from the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and also secure other documents. It is further agreed that within four months from the date of receipt of order of discharge from the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and other requisite documents, the plaintiff has to pay balance sale consideration. The defendants shall execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff without any encumbrance. As per the terms of the contract, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1 Crore as an advance. The plaintiff has also paid second advance amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- In fact, the plaintiff has paid Rs.2,37,20,000/-. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The sale agreement entered into by defendants 2 and 3 has been subsequently ratified on 30.3.2005 by the first defendant and to that effect, a letter has been sent to the plaintiff on 11.4.2005. After some time, the plaintiff has come to know that the proceeding before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction has come to an end in November/December 2005, but the defendants 2 and 3 have not intimated the same to the plaintiff and subsequently, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendants. After receipt of the same, the first defendant has not refuted the contentions of the plaintiff. The defendants 2 and 3 have chosen to send a reply notice and the same contains false and untenable contentions. Under such circumstances, present suit has been instituted for the relief sought therein.