S. BALAJI Vs. PRABAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit in O.S.No.400 of 2007 is the appellant herein.

(2.) The appellant/ plaintiff filed the above said suit seeking specific performance of the sale agreement dtd. 26/5/1994 and it was dismissed by the trial court. The findings of the trial court were affirmed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.19 of 2018 filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the plaintiff has come before this court by filing the present second appeal.

(3.) According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property belonged to the respondents/defendants and he entered into a sale agreement with them on 26/5/1994 to purchase the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.43,500.00 and he paid a sum of Rs.3,500.00 as advance on the date of sale agreement itself. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the sale transaction had to be completed within six month time by paying the balance sale consideration amount, however, time was not the essence of the contract. It was stated by the plaintiff that the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendants received a sum of Rs.5,000.00 from the plaintiff towards part of sale consideration on 14/6/1997. It is the further case of the plaintiff that though he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendants attempted to alienate the properties to third parties. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a pre suit notice to the defendants on 22/3/2007, calling upon them to complete the sale transaction. But the defendants refused to perform their part of contract through a reply notice dtd. 24/3/2007 by sending a demand draft for Rs.8,500.00 dtd. 24/3/2007 to the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit seeking specific performance of the sale agreement against the respondents/defendants.