LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-394

M KAJA NIJAMUDDEN Vs. A RAJAMANI

Decided On February 21, 2017
M Kaja Nijamudden Appellant
V/S
A Rajamani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant who suffered a decree for specific performance is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale on 15/12/2006 agreeing to convey the suit property for consideration of Rs. 6,35,000/-. An advance of Rs.35,000/- was paid on the date of the agreement and a period of four months was fixed for performance of the agreement. The time fixed under the agreement was extended up to 15/06/2007 on 02/04/2007 and there was a further extension up to 15/08/2007. Since the defendant did not execute the sale deed, despite demands made by the plaintiff, a legal notice came to be issued on 06/08/2007 by the plaintiff. The defendant sent a reply on 09/08/2007 claiming that time was the essence of the contract and the plantiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated under the agreement. On receipt of the reply the plaintiff came forward with the present suit for specific performance.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the agreement itself was entered into since he needed money for performance of his daughter s marriage. Therefore, according to the defendant, it was agreed between the parties that time should be the essence of the contract. The defendant would contend that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the two extensions were granted only at the instance of the plaintiff. Despite the said extensions the plaintiff had not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration and take the sale deed. The defendant would also question the ability of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs. The defendant had also pointed out that in and by the reply notice dated 09/08/2007 he had terminated the contract. On the above pleadings the defendant has sought for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) On the above pleadings the learned Additional District Judge,(FTC-III) Coimbatore framed the following issues