N. SUNDARAMURTHY Vs. SUSEELADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the suit, O.S.No.548 of 2004, for specific performance are the appellants. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties originally belonged to one Ponnappa Gounder, who died leaving behind three sons namely (1) Nachimuthu, (2) Kandasamy (died) and (3) Subramanian (died). The said Nachimuthu represented by his son Sundaramoorthy as a power agent along with defendants 5 to 8, who are legal representatives of the deceased Kandasamy and Subramanian entered into an agreement of sale on 21.01.2000 agreeing to convey the suit properties for a total consideration of Rs. 10,52,250.00. Rs. 50,000.00 and Rs. 2,60,000 were paid on 13.01.2000 and 21.01.2000 respectively towards advance. The sum of Rs. 2,60,000.00 was paid by way of cheque dated 27.01.2000. Thus the total advance amount works out to Rs. 3,10,000.00. A period of one year was fixed for performance.

(2.) The 1st plaintiff had issued a notice 14.05.2002 demanding performance as per the agreement. Since the defendants refused to comply with the demand, the 1st plaintiff had filed the above suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 21.01.2000. The suit came to be filed on 21.01.2003. The 1st plaintiff died pending suit. His legal representatives were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 4.

(3.) Since one of the vendors namely, Nachimuthu Gounder died on 29.02.2010 i.e. a month after the agreement, his legal representatives were shown as defendants 1 to 4. The legal representatives of the deceased Gvoindasamy were shown as defendants 5 and 6 and the legal representative of Subramaniyan were shown as defendants 7 and 8. The defendants 9 to 11 are the other legal heirs of the deceased 1st plaintiff. The 1st defendant filed a written statement admitting the agreement and the receipt of the advance. The 1st defendant would however claim that since Nachimuthu gounder had died, the power of attorney has become invalid and therefore, the agreement executed by the power agent is unenforceable. Apart from the said plea, the 1st defendant would also plead that the 1st plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Even though a long period of one year was fixed for performance, according to the 1st defendant, the plaintiff never came forward to pay the balance consideration and take the sale deed. The fact that the 1st plaintiff kept quite for nearly two years and the suit itself came to be filed on 21.01.2003 i.e. exactly three years after the execution of the agreement, the 1st defendant would contend that the suit has to fail for want of readiness and willingness on the part of the 1st plaintiff.