P R GOPAL Vs. M RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in C. S. No. 273 o 1996, a suit for specific performance, granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaint averments are stated as follows:

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement stating that on 19. 2. 1994, the defendant and the plaintiff undertook for sale and purchase of the suit property; that it was agreed that the plaintiff would purchase the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 10,25,000/-, and she would clear the amounts due to the Indian Overseas Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, which was Rs. 6,75,000/- at that time; that she also agreed that she would pay Rs. 1,30,000/- in addition to sale consideration by way of cheque separately in favour of the defendant; that the agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant only in the presence of one Mr. Balasubramanian, Branch Manager of the said Bank, who has filed C. S. No. 1542/1993 against the defendant for recovery of the said loan amount; that the defendant had agreed to sell only the ground floor, first floor and the second floor of the suit property, but the plaintiff claims third and fourth floors, over which the plaintiff has no right whatsoever; that the defendant obtained the income tax clearance certificate, but it was the plaintiff who was not ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement; that the statement of the plaintiff that she was processing a house loan would show that she did not have adequate funds and therefore, her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the agreement is false and untenable; that no steps were taken by the plaintiff for clearing the bank loan; that even at the time of filing the suit, the plaintiff had not deposited the alleged balance consideration; that the receipt of further advance of Rs. 35,000/- and the alleged payment of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the tenants are denied by the defendant; that no such right was conferred on the plaintiff to make payment to the tenants; that the defendant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; that the plaintiff had obtained loan from a financial institution and from and out of the funds so raised, the husband of the plaintiff has purchased Door No. 11, Ibrahim Sait Street, Madras, in his name and that this would show that the plaintiff is not interested in performing the terms of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant; that the plaintiff was not ready to purchase the suit property, and hence the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of the agreement, dated 19. 2. 94.