MOHAN Vs. KASTHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dtd. 24/10/2014 in O.S.No.42 of 2007 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry, rejecting the relief for specific performance of agreements and for directing defendants 1 and 3 to 13 to receive Rs.25,02,385.00 as balance sale consideration on execution and registration of sale deed and to delivery possession of 5/7th share of suit property in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein according to their litigative status and rank before the Trial Court.

(3.) The case of the appellants/ plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff had entered into an agreement for sale dtd. 19/6/2004 to purchase the 1/7th share of suit properties from defendants 1 & 2, for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,14,288.00 and on the same day, an advance sale consideration of Rs.3,57,144.00 was paid and one of the conditions entered is that, all the documents shall be handed over by defendants 1 & 2 to the first plaintiff within a period of one month. Further, the third defendant has also come forward to sell his 1/7th share in favour of the second plaintiff, for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,60,000.00 and an agreement of sale was also entered on 23/6/2004 and on the same day, an advance sale consideration of Rs.3,57,144.00 was paid. Thereafter, defendants 4 to 7 have also come forward to sell their 2/7th shares in the suit property, based on the declaration of shares made in the partition decree dtd. 23/6/1999 passed in O.S.No.74 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry for a total sale consideration of Rs.14,28,100.00 and they have also received a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 as advance sale consideration. Similarly, defendants 8 to 13 have also come forward to sell their 1/7th share to the second plaintiff by an agreement dtd. 30/9/2004 for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,54,285.00 and a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 was paid as part of consideration on the date of agreement. Thus, the plaintiffs have agreed to purchase totally 5/7th share in the suit property and they are ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. Subsequently, plaintiffs have came to know that there was an appeal in A.S.No.624 of 1999 was filed before the High Court of Madras, against the decree passed in O.S.No.74 of 1999, hence they were not in a position to pay the balance sale consideration and conclude the contract entered between them and defendants. In the meantime, defendants 1 and 3 have sent legal notices to the plaintiffs stating that the plaintiffs have not come forward to conclude the contract of sale, which was also suitably replied by the plaintiffs, stating that they were ready for execution. Whileso, one of the vendor in agreement dtd. 30/9/2004 was died on 11/11/2004 and immediately the plaintiffs met the legal heirs of the deceased vendor, who are defendants 8 to 13 and they also promised that they will execute the sale deed at the earliest and will resolve all the disputes in their family and then undertook to arrive compromise in A.S.No.624 of 1999. Whileso, the first plaintiff suffered heart attack and undergone major surgery, therefore the other vendors have assured that they are ready to wait till the recovery of the first plaintiff and to execute the sale deed. Further defendants have also requested the plaintiffs to pay an additional sum of Rs.50,000.00 each to the five sharers of vendors and the plaintiffs have also agreed for the same, on condition that the vendors shall submit all the documents. Subsequently in May 2007, the defendants have made an attempt to enrich themselves by dealing with the properties behind the back of plaintiffs, hence the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit for specific performance.