THIRUMALAMMAL AND ORS. Vs. SUBBIAH THEVAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul in A.S.No. 33/1999, dated 07.02.2000, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul in O.S.No. 831/1996, dated 07.10.1998, the present second appeal has been filed. The plaintiffs, who lost before the courts below are the appellants herein.

(2.) One Karuppayi Ammal, owner of the suit property entered into a sale agreement (Ex.A.1) with one Sowdamuthu on 16.07.1986, agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs. 10,100/- and received a sum of Rs. 100/- as advance for the same. As per the sale agreement, the balance sale consideration should be paid in 10 yearly instalments by the said Sowdamuthu and on doing so, Karuppayi Ammal should execute the sale deed in favour of Sowdamuthu, failing which, Sowdamuthu was authorised to take necessary legal action to get the sale deed executed. While so, the said Sowdamuthu passed away on 24.11.1993, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the fifth defendant as his legal heirs. Similarly, the said Karuppayi Ammal also died during 1990, leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as her legal representatives. Subsequently, the legal heirs of Sowdamuthu viz., the plaintiffs and fifth defendant asked the defendants to execute the sale deed during June 1996, but, they failed to do so. The plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of the sale agreement and are also ready to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court. Hence, the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit seeking specific performance of Ex.A.1/sale agreement.

(3.) The defendants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Karuppayi Ammal filed a written statement, contending that the suit property was purchased by Karuppayi Ammal from Sowdamuthu and Lakkammal on 16.07.1986, as per Ex.B.1, sale deed and on the same day, he entered into a resale agreement with Sowdamuthu (Ex.A.1) for Rs. 10,100/-. The first defendant states that his mother Karuppayi Ammal died in the year 1990 and thereafter, he is the sole owner of the suit property and he is in enjoyment and possession of the property. Apart from the first defendant, the deceased Karuppayi Ammal had one daughter, who is the fourth defendant in the suit and another son, who had died 30 years ago, leaving behind his wife/second defendant and the only son/third defendant in the suit as his legal heirs. The 2nd and 3rd defendants, after receiving Rs. 45,000/- cash, have relinquished their right in the joint family property. Hence, the defendants 2 and 3 have no right, title over the suit property. Similarly, sister of the first defendant, who is arrayed as 5th defendant in the suit, received Rs. 37,000/- and executed a release deed on 12.07.1986. Thus, the fifth defendant has also no interest or right over the suit property. After purchasing the suit property on 16.07.1986 from Sowdamuthu and Lakkammal for Rs. 10,000/-, the deceased Karuppayi Ammal had entered into a resale agreement with Sowdamuthu on the same day for Rs. 10,100/-. The deceased Sowdamuthu or his legal heirs never demanded completion of sale of the property by Karuppayi Ammal or by first defendant. It is admitted by first defendant that Ex.A.1-sale agreement was entered into between Sowdamuthu and his mother, but the plaintiffs were never prepared to fulfill their part of the Ex.A.1 sale agreement. Hence, the first defendant seeks dismissal of the suit.