V PANNEER SELVAM Vs. S CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.9369 of 2006 is the appellant. The said suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,06,567.26 along with interest at 24% per annum on Rs.3,51,526/- due under the sale agreement and construction agreement and for costs. According to the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff one T.S.Velu was the owner of 2000sq.ft. of land with an access through a 10 feet vide a common passage. In order to promote the said land into a multistoried residential apartment complex, the plaintiff who is the qualified promoter was entrusted with the job. The defendant was interested purchasing the residential apartment measuring about 920sq.ft. in the first floor of the said proposed residential apartment complex and has purchased a undivided 375 sq.ft. of land. A sale agreement was entered into on 15.5.2002 between the defendant and the owner of the land namely the father of the plaintiff T.S.Velu represented by his wife V.Meenatchi, as the Power Agent for sale of 375sq.ft. of undivided share in land. On the same day i.e. on 15.5.2002 the defendant entered into a construction agreement with the plaintiff for construction of residential apartment in the first floor, according to the specification set out in the said agreement. It was agreed that the total cost of the apartment would be Rs.9,20,000/- at Rs.1000 per sq.ft. which included the value of the undivided share of the land.

(2.) The sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant on 22.08.2002 with reference to 375sq.ft. of undivided share in the land. The construction was almost completed and possession of the apartment was handed over to the defendant on 12.09.2002. The plaintiff would claim that the defendant has required the plaintiff, to do certain additional works and agreed to pay the cost of the said works also.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the defendant had did not come forward to pay the balance as per the agreement and therefore, he issued a notice on 09.04.2003 to the defendant claiming that the sum of Rs.1,42,576/- was due and payable to him under the construction agreement dated 15.05.2002. The said notice dated 09.04.2003 was replied by the defendant under Ex.B2 dated 14.5.2003, wherein the defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and claimed that there is only a sum of Rs.15,000/- due and payable that would be paid immediately after the remaining works are completed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff would further contend that on 10.04.2003 he issued a demand notice claiming that a sum of Rs.3,51,526/- due and payable by the defendant. The said demand notice dated 10.04.2003 was accompanied by a final bill which shows the amount payable by the defendant.