S.VALLIAMMAL Vs. N.LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who had lost both the Courts below, has preferred the present second appeal. The suit was filed for recovery of money based on the sale agreement.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that she and the first defendant entered into a sale agreement on 15.12.2003 for the sale of the suit mentioned property for a sum of Rs.4,85,000/-. As per the agreement, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid as advance and three months time was fixed for execution of the sale deed. It is stated by the plaintiff that on various dates, the first defendant had received a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and totally, he had received Rs.2,85,000/-. Inspite of receiving the said amount, the first defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract. In the meanwhile, the first defendant had sold the property to the second defendant on 01.08.2004. As the property has already been conveyed by the first defendant, the plaintiff has filed the suit only for recovery of Rs.2,85,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and also asked for a charge over the property.

(3.) The suit was contested by the first defendant on various grounds. The first defendant had admitted the execution of the sale agreement and also the receipt of Rs.25,000/- under the same. However, the payment of subsequent amounts, as mentioned under Exs.A2 to A5, are totally denied by the first defendant. Though three months time was fixed for the performance of the contract, as the plaintiff was not ready and willing to do the same, the first defendant had sold the property to the second defendant. In fact, the first defendant claims that he was not furnished a copy of the agreement. After repudiating the contract, when the original agreement was demanded to be returned, the plaintiff was evading the same. Though the agreement was entered into in the year 2003, the property was sold to the second defendant only in the year 2008 to the knowledge of the plaintiff. As the first defendant had denied the receipt of payments under Exs.A2 to A5, there is no liability on him to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Besides, the suit itself is barred by limitation. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Court.