PERIYASWAMY Vs. KALIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs 1 ,2 and 4 and respondents 6 to 13 the heirs of the 3rd plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3 appear to be the appellants before the first appellate court. The suit O. S. No. 224 of 1977 was filed on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Periyakulam for specific performance directing the defendants to receive a sum of Rs. 1,500 being the amount of reconveyance deposited into court and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property and in default to have it done through court.

(2.) THE relevant facts necessary for appreciating the respective contentions of the parties are not in serious controversy. On 27. 2. 1960, the plaintiffs sold the suit property to one late Chinna Karuppan for a sum of Rs. 1500 as per the terms of a registered sale deed. On the same day, the plaintiffs and late Chinna Karuppan entered into a separate agreement to reconvey the property to the plaintiffs, if they paid a sum of Rs. 1,500 to late Chinna Kauppan after 26. 2. 1970 and prior to 26. 2. 1975 (that is after ten years and prior to the expiry of 15 years from the date of sale) and that if the plaintiffs failed to repay the amount, within the said period, Chinna karuppan would be entitled to enjoy the property absolutely. THE said Chinna karuppan died and the 1st defendant is the wife of late Chinna Karuppan and defendants 2 and 3 are his children. THE claim of the plaintiffs is that as per the terms of the agreement, on 20. 1. 1974 the plaintiffs of fered a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the defendants and requested them to execute a reconveyance deed, but, they did not receive the money and execute the reconveyance, necessitating the plaintiffs to issue a lawyer s notice, dated 30. 1. 1974 which, though was received by the defendants, was not replied, nor any compliance with such demand, has been made, resulting in the filing of the suit on 19. 7. 1977, depositing the sum in question before Court, praying for the relief as noticed earlier.

(3.) IN Simrathmjll v. Nanjalingiah, AIR 1963 S. C. 1182 also it was held that the agreements of reconveyance, on the original vendor performing certain conditions, have to be construed strictly and the court could not relieve the plaintiff against the forfeiture clause if the original vendor failed to act punctually according to the terms of the contract and that the right to repurchase would be lost and could not be specifically enforced. It was also observed that refusal to enforce the terms specifically for failure to abide by the conditions did not amount enforcing of penalty. It was also held by the Apex Court that where under a contract of reconveyance a beneficial right is to arise upon the performance by the beneficiary of some act in a stated manner or at a stated time, the act must be performed accordingly in order to obtain the enjoyment of the right and in the absence of fraud, accident or surprise, equity will not relieve against a breach of the terms.