T JAYARAM NAIDU Vs. YASODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 29. 09. 1995 made in O. S. No. 156 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

(2.) THE appellants herein were the plaintiffs in the suit, filed for the relief of specific performance, directing the respondents to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the first appellant or his nominee in respect of the suit property set out in the schedule thereunder.

(3.) AS per the schedule of property, it is situated at Plot No. 68, in S. No. 326/1, Saidapet Taluk, Tambaram, comprising of three shops, with specific measurements and boundaries. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that the suit property belonged to the respondents 1 to 5 and their mother late Amirthavalli Thayarammal. While they were residing at No. 46, Elaya Azhagar Koil Street, Saidapet, on 23. 09. 1983 Amirthavalli Thayarammal had approached the first appellant to put up construction of three shops at his own cost on the eastern side of the residential building which was subsequently let out to the appellants. According to the appellants, on 23. 09. 1983, Amirthavalli Thayarammal told the appellants that she was in need of money for the marriage expenses of the fifth respondent and requested the first appellant to construct three shops in the vacant site at his own cost by giving an assurance that she would sell the suit property, together with buildings to be put up by the first appellant at the prevailing market value on the proposed date of sale. Accordingly, believing her words the first appellant spent a sum of Rs. 58,842. 44 for putting up three shops, bearing Door Nos. 8a, 8b and 8c. The aforesaid agreement dated 23. 09. 1983 was only oral and it was agreed between the parties that the said sum of Rs. 58,842. 44 shall be given credit towards the sale consideration. The appellants have further stated that on 18. 11. 1983, Amirthavalli Thayarammal let out two shops bearing Door Nos. 8a and 8b, to the first appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- each and she had also received a sum of Rs. 39,000/- towards advance. Similarly, the other portion bearing Door No. 8c was let out to the second appellant, son-in-law of the first appellant for a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was also received for the same, by Amirthavalli Thayarammal towards advance and the appellants/plaintiffs had paid the rent up to April 1986.