ASERA SHELTERS AND INVESTMENTS LTD Vs. HARISHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit has been filed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and its objective are building and developing properties in Chennai. It had been stated that the plaintiff entered into an agreement for purchase of the property bearing Door No.9, Gengu Reddy Road, Egmore, Chennai from one R.Nandakumar, who was the father of the defendant. It had been stated that the said Nandakumar wanted to sell the property and consequently, the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 01.10.2007 for a total consideration of Rs.1,45,00,000/-. At the time of agreement a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- had been paid as an advance. It had been further stated that there was a tenant, running TASMAC liquor shop in the premises and the said Nandakumar agreed to vacate the tenant. It had been stated that time was not the essence of the agreement. It had been further stated that the said Nandakumar was not able to vacate the tenant. He kept postponing to perform his part of the agreement.

(3.) In February 2008, the plaintiff was informed that the wife of said Nandakumar was suffering from Cancer and therefore the plaintiff did not persuade the said Nandakumar to immediately perform his part of the agreement. Subsequently, the said Nandakumar passed away in June 2008. It was stated that one Sethuraman, the Uncle of the defendant also knew about the agreement. The mother of the plaintiff also died because of Cancer. The defendant was asked to perform the agreement entered into by his father and a letter dated 13.08.2008 was sent. There was no reply from the defendant. A notice was issued on 10.12.2008 to both the defendant and the said Sethuraman. The notice was returned with the endorsement "Intimation Delivered". It had been stated that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. It had been further stated that the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed and at the same time was making arrangement to sell the property. The suit was consequently filed for specific performance and for a permanent injunction.