RAMATHAL Vs. R SAVITHIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2009, passed in Original Suit No.384 of 2005 by the Fast Track Court-IV, Coimbatore at Tirupur.

(2.) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, has instituted a Original Suit No.384 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court, praying to pass a decree of specific performance, in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 23.01.2004, wherein, the present appellant has been arrayed as sole defendant.

(3.) The material averments made in the plaint are that the suit property is absolute property of the defendant. The defendant has agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 30.05.1990 for a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-. On the date of agreement dated 30.05.1990, Rs.4,00,000/- has been given as an advance and subsequently, a suit has been instituted in Original Suit No.323 of 1993 in respect of a cart track and after lapse of five years, the same has been withdrawn in the year 1998 and subsequently, a panchayat has been convened. The defendant has agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- and to that extent, she has executed the suit sale agreement dated 23.01.2004. On the date of its execution, she received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and also conceded to the effect that Rs.4,00,000/- already paid, as per sale agreement dated 30.05.1990 can also be taken as advance and in aggregation, the defendant has received Rs.6,00,000/-. Further, it is agreed that the balance of sale consideration should be paid within a period of two years for getting a sale deed registered. Despite of reeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not come forward to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and under such circumstances, on 28.02.2005, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendant. After receipt of the same, an interim reply notice has been issued on 07.03.2005 and subsequently, on 11.03.2005, another notice has been issued to the defendant and after receipt of the same, the defendant has given a reply notice on 19.03.2005. In the reply notice, it is falsely alleged to the effect that the defendant has not executed suit sale agreement dated 23.01.2004. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and under such circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for getting the relief sought therein.