PADMA Vs. C. NASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 19 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupattur, Vellore District have come forward with A.S. No. 50 of 2011 aggrieved by the decree and Judgment dated 07.10.2010 in so far as it relates to the refusal on the part of the trial Court to impose costs, while decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by them. The defendant in O.S. No. 19 of 2008 has filed A.S. No. 231 of 2011 questioning the validity of the very same decree and judgment dated 07.10.2010, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance was decreed.

(2.) For easy reference, the parties to these appeals shall be referred to as per their litigative status in the suit as Plaintiffs and defendant.

(3.) As per the averments contained in the plaint, on 01.12.2007, the plaintiffs and defendant have entered into an agreement of sale whereby the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule mentioned property owned by him to the plaintiffs for Rs. 89,000/- per cent. On the date of execution of the agreement of sale, the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as sale advance by way of two demand drafts each for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- bearing No. 955625 dated 30.11.2007 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Vellore and demand draft bearing No. 599429 dated 30.11.2007 drawn on Canara Bank, Vaniyambadi. Both the demand drafts were drawn in favour of the defendant, whereby the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as sale advance on the date of execution of the agreement dated 01.12.2007. Thereafter, as requested by the defendant, the plaintiffs have paid a further sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by means of two demand drafts, one dated 28.12.2007 bearing No. 955688 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Vellore Branch and another demand draft No. 599482 dated 28.12.2017 for Rs. 2,50,000/- and on receipt of the two demand drafts, the defendant has also made an endorsement in the reverse of the sale agreement as an acknowledgment for having received the further sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Thus, the plaintiffs have totally paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as sale advance. According to the plaintiffs, though time was not mutually intended as essence of the contract, the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed in their favour. The Plaintiffs have also approached the defendant on several occasions to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed in their favour, but the defendant neglected and evaded to perform his part of the contract under some pretext or other.