GURUVANDI Vs. D.SARAVANAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. The suit is filed for specific performance directing the defendants to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000.00 and in the alternative, the defendants may be directed to return a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 with 2% interest per month to the Plaintiff.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that on 4/2/1999, the defendants 1 to 3 had entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties for a sale consideration of Rs.2,75,000.00, for which the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 as advance. As per the said agreement, the sale has to be effected on payment of balance sale consideration viz., Rs.25,000.00, within 9 months. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendants had refused to perform their part of the contract. Hence, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 10/9/1999. As there was no response to the same, the plaintiff had filed the suit. The third defendant is the son of the first and second defendants. Since the first defendant died, the other legal heirs of the first defendant were impleaded as the defendants 4 to 7.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit denying the execution of sale agreement and also receipt of Rs.2,50,000.00 from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, his brother by name Karthikeyan and their father by name Dhandapani have been running a fruit vending business in the name and style of ?B.G.Dhandapani and Sons?. The third defendant had been having a business transaction with the plaintiff for ten years, in which the third defendant had to pay a sum of Rs.4,97,856.00 to the plaintiff. Though the third defendant had repaid a sum of Rs.3,21,986.00 and the balance amount to be paid was only Rs.1,75,370.00, the plaintiff had demanded Rs.2,98,370.00, calculating the total amount of Rs.4,97,856.00 with 48% interest per annum. Taking advantage of the age of the first and second defendants and also with an intention to usurp the property of the defendants, on 4/1/1999 the plaintiff had obtained a mortgage deed and a power of attorney deed in favour of his brother Karthikeyan. In addition to that, the plaintiff and his brother had obtained signatures of the defendants in two promissory notes and blank papers. There was no sale agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendants. The alleged sale agreement did not contain the details of the trees, pumpset, house, etc., available in the property. On 1/9/1999, the defendants had cancelled the power of attorney deed executed in favour of the plaintiff's brother and also informed the same through a notice dtd. 10/9/1999. But, the plaintiff's brother did not give any reply to the said notice. Since the defendants did not concede to repay the debt with 48% interest per annum, the plaintiff had filed the suit by creating forged documents. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.