KANAKAVALLI Vs. PANGACHACHI @ PANGAJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. Suit has been filed for specific performance based upon Ex.A2-sale agreement dated 12.02.1999. Ex.A2 is an agreement entered into between the plaintiff/appellant being the agreement holder and the defendant being the owner for a total consideration of Rs.90,000/-. A sum of Rs.40,000/- has been paid under Ex.A2-sale agreement dated 12.02.1999 followed by another sum of Rs.8,000/- on 25.10.1999. The period mentioned for remaining payment is two years. Ex.A4 is the legal notice dated 09.10.2000 to the address in Pollachi. The said notice was returned as "no such addressee". Thereafter, Ex.A6-notice was issued to the suit property in which, the defendant was stated to be residing. Ex.A6 has been acknowledged by the defendant as per Ex.A7. Based upon which, the suit has been laid.

(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for on the premise that the execution of Ex.A1-sale agreement and the endorsement are not denied. Incidentally, it has been held that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. An observation has been made by the trail Court to the effect that the statement made by the defendant that she is residing in the suit property as per Ex.A2 is not proved. The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by raising doubt over the period of two years mentioned in Ex.A2. It found that the defence of the defendant is probable. Ex.A1 is only loan transaction. If the plaintiff is in possession of the remaining amount even after execution of Ex.A2, nothing prevented her from making the payment immediately thereafter. The contention of the plaintiff that the suit property has been leased out by the defendant and in order to hand over vacant possession of the suit property, she need time and that is the reason why the sale deed was not executed was found not correct in view of Ex.A6 having been received by the defendant therein as against the place of residence mentioned in Ex.A2. The lower appellate Court has also found that the plaintiff and her husband are doing business in finance. It is admitted by her that chit transaction was going on at their residence. Challenging the judgment and decree rendered by the lower appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) At the time of admission of this appeal on 01.09.2015, the following substantial question of law has been framed for consideration.