PAPPATHY AMMAL Vs. P.C.VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals have been preferred by the legal representatives of the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.1434/1986 and O.S.No.1436/1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee challenging the decree of the lower appellate court (Sub Court, Poonamallee) dated 29.03.2005 made in A.S.Nos.12/2003 and 13/2003 respectively, confirming the decrees of the trial court dated 17.03.2003 dismissing the said suits. Both the suits wee filed for the relief of specific performance of two different agreements for sale dated 04.04.1977 in respect of 78 cents comprised in S.No.80/5 and Acres 1.52 cents comprised in S.No.79/2 in Perumal Agaram Village, Saidapet Sub-Registration District, respectively.

(2.) The first suit O.S.No.1434/1986 was filed by Madurai Gramani on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee against P.C.Venkatesan, the sole defendant in the said suit for the relief of specific performance, based on an agreement for sale allegedly executed by the said P.C.Venkatesan on 04.04.1977 agreeing to sell 78 cents of land comprised in S.No.80/5 in Perumal Agaram village for a sale consideration of Rs.2,808/-. It was contended by the plaintiff Madurai Gramani in his plaint that on the date of agreement itself, a sum of Rs.1,400/- was paid as advance and it was agreed between the parties that the sale transaction should be completed within four months and that the possession of the said property, which was agreed to be sold, was also handed over to him in part performance of the agreement for sale. It was his further contention that though a time of four months had been stipulated in the agreement, a further sum of Rs.1,250/- was paid on 10.08.1977 as further advance and part payment of the balance sale consideration, leaving a balance of Rs.158/- alone; that P.C.Venkatesan, the sole defendant in O.S.No.1434/1986 made an endorsement on 10.08.1977 acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,250/- as further advance and part payment of the balance sale consideration and promising to execute the sale deed as and when the plaintiff (Madurai Gramani) would require him to do so. He contended further that Rajagopal, Venugopal and Loganathan (defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.1436/1986) filed a suit in O.S.No.37/1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee for the reliefs of declaration and injunction based on their contention that they were the legal representatives of late Muthukrishnan Naidu; that in view of the pendency of the said suit P.C.Venkatesan, the sole defendant in O.S.No.1434/1986, was postponing the execution of the sale deed in accordance with the agreement for sale and was promising to execute the sale deed after the disposal of the above mentioned suit in O.S.No.37/1978 filed by Rajagopal, Venugopal and Loganathan; that even after the disposal of the said suit, the defendant P.C.Venkatesan evaded execution of the sale deed in accordance with the agreement for sale stating that an appeal had been preferred against the decree passed in O.S.No.37/1978 and that though the plaintiff Madurai Gramani had been always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations under the agreement for sale, it was the defendant Venkatesan, who committed breach of contract. Contending further that besides refusing to execute a sale deed in terms of the agreement for sale, the defendant P.C.Venkatesan made attempts to evict the plaintiff from the suit property on 06.08.1986 and 10.10.1986, pursuant to which, he lodged a complaint with the police, the plaintiff Madurai Gramani filed the suit O.S.No.1434/1986 seeking the relief of specific performance against P.C.Venkatesan, the sole defendant therein.

(3.) The suit was resisted by P.C.Venkatesan, the sole defendant therein, denying the execution of the suit sale agreement and other plaint averments. It was also contended in his written statement that the cause of action alleged in the plaint was imaginary; that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation; that the plaintiff was not ready to pay the balance amount of sale consideration and spend for the stamp duty and registration charges; that the alleged attempts made to evict the plaintiff on 06.08.1986 and 10.10.1986 were false and imaginary; that it was so alleged in an attempt to show a cause of action for the filing of the suit; that the plaintiff himself was not ready and willing to complete the transaction and that hence the suit should be dismissed with cost.