G RAJU Vs. S K R THIYAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is brought forth by the plaintiff aggrieved over the judgment of the first appellate Court namely the Sub Court, Krishnagiri, made in A. S. No. 68/88 whereby the judgment of the trial Court namely the District munsif, Krishnagiri, granting a decree in O. S. No. 200/81 a suit for specific performance on an agreement for sale, was reversed by dismissing the suit.

(2.) THE appellant/plaintiff filed the suit with the following pleadings: the first respondent/defendant, the owner of the property namely a small piece of land measuring 40 cents in survey No. 92/2, entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 2. 4. 1980, wherein the consideration was fixed at Rs. 29,000/ -. Out of the same, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid as advance. It was also understood that the property should be divided into six plots leaving 12 + cents for the purpose of road. It was also agreed that these plots have to be sold to different persons as identified by the plaintiff, and on recovery of the sale consideration from them, it has got to be paid to the defendant, and it was to be adjusted towards the balance of sale consideration as found in the agreement. Accordingly, it was divided into six plots. In respect of plot Nos. I, II, III and IV, sale deeds were executed by the defendant by getting necessary consideration from the third parties, and thus, there was a balance of only Rs. 7,600/ -. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to make the said payment. Apart from that, despite the notice and telegraphic message expressing his willingness, the defendant was evading. Under the circumstances, there arose a necessity for filing the suit.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant stating that it was true that there was an agreement between the parties; but, the time was the essence of the contract; that the plaintiff should make the payment of balance of consideration on or before 10. 5. 1980 and get the sale deed executed in his favour; but, he has not done so; that apart from that, there was no agreement between them by which it has got to be divided into plots; that considering the circumstances, though they were divided into six plots, the defendant executed the sale deeds in respect of plot Nos. I, ii, III and IV; that when the payment was not made, there was a panchayat convened; that as per the decision taken in the panchayat, the defendant was to take the rest of the two plots namely plot Nos. V and VI, and he must execute the sale deeds in respect of the others; that accordingly, it was done; that under the circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief on these grounds, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.