C K NATARAJAN Vs. M SARVOTHAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer:- Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.10 of 2007 dated 23.10.2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.901 of 2004 dated 29.11.2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tirupur.) This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of Courts below in A.S.No.10 of 2007 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupur, dated 23.10.2007(arising out of the trial Court judgment in O.S.No.901 of 2004 on the file of learned District Munsif, Tirupur dated 29.11.2006) dismissing the Plaintiff's Suit for specific performance. Unsuccessful Plaintiff is the Appellant.

(2.) CASE of Plaintiff is that first Respondent/Defendant had entered into an Agreement of Sale (Ex.A1) on 12.03.1998. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.65,000/- and on the same day, Plaintiff had paid an advance amount of Rs.20,000/- to the first Defendant. On 10.03.2000, Plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- (EX.A2- Endorsement) and the time was extended from 10.03.2000 to 12.03.2002 under Ex.A3-Endorsement. Plaintiff had again paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 09.03.2002 and the sale agreement was extended from 12.03.2002 to 12.09.2004. According to the Plaintiff he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On 12.09.2004, plaintiff had issued Ex.A4-Notice to the first Defendant expressing his readiness and willingness. Inspite of receipt of the said notice, the first Defendant did not execute the sale deed. In order to defeat the lawful claim of the Plaintiff, first defendant had executed Ex.B7-Sale Deed (18.09.2002) in favour of Defendants 2 and 3 and the sale deed has been created and is binding upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance against the Defendants 1 to 3.

(3.) AGGRIEVED, Plaintiff has filed A.S.No. 10 of 2007. Lower Appellate Court also held that Exs.A1 to 3 were not executed by the first Defendant as agreement of sale and for extending time for performance of the contract. Lower Appellate Court held that first Defendant had signed in blank stamp papers only for the loan transaction and on this finding confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.