Y. MARIYA SELVAM Vs. E. YESURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant in the suit in O.S. No.9 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The suit in O.S. No.9 of 1989 was filed by the first respondent, as plaintiff, for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 03.07.1985 in respect of the suit property. The suit property is a land measuring an extent of 6 cents along with two houses bearing Door Numbers 12/2 and 12/3 in Seevalaperi Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in the suit are as follows:

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement. The suit agreement dated 03.07.1985 and the receipt of an advance under the agreement was admitted. However, it was contended by the defendant that the plaintiff agreed to pay the entire balance amount and get the sale deed registered within six months from the date of agreement, but did not comply with. The contention of the plaintiff that the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff on the date of agreement was specifically denied by the defendant. The defendant admitted the mortgage in respect of one of the two houses but it was the specific case of the defendant that this mortgage was disclosed to the plaintiff. Further payment of Rs.40,000.00 and Rs.32,000.00 was also not disputed by the defendant. However, it was the specific case of the defendant that the entire sale consideration should be paid before the expiry of six months, as stipulated in the sale agreement and that the plaintiff was not ready with the balance of sale consideration to get the sale deed executed in his favour. The delay was not because of any fault on the part of the defendant. It was stated that instead of paying the balance of sale consideration to the defendant, the plaintiff managed to get the mortgage rights assigned in his favour. Since the defendant was in urgent need of money, it was further contended that she was only pressing the plaintiff to get the balance of sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed. The plaintiff was not prepared to go ahead with the execution of sale deed promptly in terms of the sale agreement. It was the case of the defendant that the defendant was not interested in completing the sale in time even though time is essence of contract and that therefore, the suit itself is barred by limitation. It was further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff did not get possession under the sale agreement and that therefore, he is not entitled to alter the physical features and claim any improvements. It was further stated that since the plaintiff has built separating walls and that in that process, damaged the floor, the defendant also claimed that the plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,000.00 towards damages and that the defendant is not liable to pay any amount towards improvement.