SAKKU BAI AMMAN Vs. R BABU REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 65 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge of Cuddalore, is the appellant. The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement of sale contained in Ex. A-1 dated 10-6-1965. Her case is that the first defendant, who is the father of defendants 2 to 7, entered into such an agreement of sale to sell the suit properties for a sum and consideration of Rs. 18,502. Under the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 8,001 was to be paid on the date of the registration of the agreement and the balance to be paid on the date of the registration of the agreement and the balance to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. A period of two years for performance of the contract was provided for. The agreement also provided that in default by the first defendant to execute the agreement in terms thereof, the plaintiff would be entitled to enforce the agreement by a suit and also recover damages from the first defendant. Expressly it was provided that if the plaintiff committed default, she should forfeit a sum of Rs. 1,000 from the sum of Rs. 8,0001 and the balance should be paid back by her (him?) with interest to the plaintiff. A separate agreement Ex. A-5 was also entered into almost contemporaneously with Ex. A-1 with which we are not very much concerned in this case. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant defaulted. After causing the suit notice Ex. A-6 to be issued to the first defendant and on the first defendant repudiating his obligation under the agreement of sale, the plaintiff came to court.

(2.) THE case of the first defendant is that the properties which are the subject-matter of the agreement of sale are joint family properties of defendants I to 7 and in that sense the agreement entered into by him is not enforceable. He would also contend that much against his wish the plaintiff incorporated a recital in Ex. A-1 that the properties are his self-acquired properties and also complained that the default clause was unconscionable and highly onerous. He would throw the blame on the plaintiff as a party, who was initially unwilling to implement the agreement and would state that the plaintiff has come up with this suit, since the properties have risen considerably in value. Defendants 2, 3 and 6 to 11 adopted the written statement of the first defendant in respect of the nature of the suit properties and they would also add that the agreement is unenforceable. Defendants 4 and 5 remained ex parte.

(3.) ON the above material pleadings, the following issues were framed.