R. RAMASUBBU Vs. T. PIRASHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff, who filed the suit for specific performance, which was dismissed by the Trial Court, is the appellant. According to the plaintiff, he entered into an agreement for sale with the defendants on 25/3/2006 in an by which they agreed to sell the property measuring an extent of 9657 sq.ft of land for a total consideration of Rs.7,60,000.00. On the date of the agreement, an advance of Rs.1,25,000.00 was paid and period of 45 days was fixed for performance of the contract. The second defendant, as the power of attorney agent of the first defendant, had executed the sale agreement. The second defendant has received a sum of Rs.1,35,000.00 on 30/4/2006 and further a sum of Rs.3,40,500.00 on 28/5/2006. Since the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed, despite the fact that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract he issued a legal notice on 26/2/2006. The defendants sent a reply on 9/7/2006, claiming that the notice itself is vague and since the plaintiff did not perform his part of the transaction within a time frame fixed under the agreement, they are unable to comply with the demand of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 29/2/2006 seeking specific performance.

(2.) The said suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the suit agreement has been materially altered. According to the defendants, the price agreed was Rs.7,60,000.00 per ground and not Rs.7,60,000.00 for the entire extent of 9657 sq. ft of the land. It was also contended that agreement was materially altered to suit the convenience of the plaintiff. The defendants also raised the plea of the plaintiff not being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

(3.) On the above pleadings, the learned District Judge Chengalpet framing the following issues:-