A PARVATHY Vs. VANAJA ARANGANAYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in C.S.No.1139 of 1993, whereby a suit for specific performance on the strength of a written agreement for sale, as decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance with the following averments: a) THE suit property belonged to the first defendant, whose legal representatives are the defendants 13 to 17. An agreement for sale was entered into between the first defendant, the owner and the plaintiff, who proposed to purchase the same, on 14.12.1992, whereby the sale consideration was agreed at Rs.19,50,000/-. An advance of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant and the same was also recorded in the agreement. As per the terms of the agreement, the property mortgaged with Purasawalkam Permanent Fund Ltd. should be redeemed by the first defendant and vacant possession should be handed over on or before 13.6.1993. Since the first defendant failed to comply with the terms, the plaintiff issued a notice on 14.6.1993, demanding the execution of the sale deed and also the vacant possession of the property. THEre was a reply from the first defendant on 16.6.1993. THE plaintiff never agreed to discharge the mortgage. As found in the reply notice, the first defendant was delaying the execution of sale by not furnishing no objection certificate from the appropriate authority. After reply notice, the plaintiff again issued the second notice, making demand on the first defendant for receiving the balance sale consideration on completion of the sale transaction, but the same was also denied and there was a frivolous reply. Following the same, the plaintiff issued rejoinder reiterating her case. b) So far as the mortgage was concerned, the details were not furnished to her. Without redemption of the mortgage, the sale could not be completed. As per the terms of the agreement, the first defendant had also not taken steps to evict the tenants from the suit property. THE first defendant having received Rs.6,50,000/- caused loss of Rs.13,000/- per month to the plaintiff by way of interest. Instead of honouring the agreement entered into with the plaintiff, the first defendant executed a power of attorney with the third defendant and she had created two sale deeds, purporting to convey the suit property in favour of the defendants 4 and 5. An application for contempt was also made. In the counter filed in the contempt application, it was contended that the first defendant had executed a power of attorney in favour of third parties. THE defendants 3 to 10 are only speculators. THE defendants 6 to 10 were also added as parties, since they are the persons, who were shown as purchasers of the property pending agreement in force. Pending suit, the first defendant died and the legal representatives of the first defendant were impleaded as defendants 13 to 17. Similarly, pending suit, the seventh defendant died and his legal representatives were impleaded as defendants 11 and 12. THE plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and hence specific performance has got to be granted.

(3.) THE 14th defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 15 to 17, stating that they were not parties to the agreement and hence it would not be binding on them.