N MUTHU Vs. GOVINDASWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment in O.S.No.624 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The unfortunate plaintiff, who has lost his case before the trial Court, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE short facts of the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal runs as follows:- THE plaint schedule properties are in Kala Patti Village in Coimbatore taluk. THE first defendant representing as the agent of the second defendant and acting under his instructions prepared a layout plan for large area of land belonging to the second defendant. This layout plan has been approved by the Director of Town Planning in L.P/ R(C.N.) No.32 of 1975. THE plaintiff had agreed to purchase two sites viz., site Nos.31 & 32 from the defendants. On 25.07.1980 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the first defendant to purchase site Nos.31 and 32. THE first defendant acted on behalf of the second defendant as his agent. THE sale consideration was fixed as Rs.3000/- and an advance of Rs.1000/- was also paid to the first defendant by the plaintiff. THE sale deed has to be executed within six months from the date of the agreement ie., 25.7.1980. In fact, this was in renewal of an earlier agreement dated 2.2.1980, which is now with the defendants. After expiry of the time fixed in the earlier agreement, the suit agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. THE contract between the defendants is a layout contract. THE first defendant took the responsibility of forming the layout and find buyers for the various house sites. THE second defendant is obliged to execute sale deed by portions of the land as various house sites to the nominees of the first defendant. In furtherance of the contract dated 25.4.1975 entered into between the first defendant, the second defendant had sold various house sites to third parties. In pursuance of the above contract entered into between the first and second defendant, the first defendant entered into contract with the plaintiff on 25.7.1980. Thus the plaintiff is a nominee of the original vendee the first defendant to get a sale deed of the suit properties in his favour by the second defendant in accordance with the contract dated 25.4.1975. THE contract dated 25.7.1980 is a part of the contract dated 25.4.1975 and it stands on a separate and independent footing and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to ask for the specific performance of the contract on the basis of the sale agreement entered into between the plaintiff and D1 dated 25.7.1980. THE plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. THE plaintiff is always willing to pay the balance of the sale consideration, to get the necessary stamp papers and also to get the sale deed executed. But inspite of repeated requests the defendants have been postponing the same on one pretext or another. THE plaintiff issued notice through his lawyer to both the defendants. THE first defendant has not received the notice and managed to send it back to the plaintiff. THE second defendant had acknowledged the same and sent a reply dated 8.8.91 containing false and vexatious contentions. THE second defendant in his reply notice would state that the first defendant is not an agent of the second defendant and that he was not aware of the agreement entered into between the first defendant and the plaintiff. THE City of Coimbatore has been upgraded into a corporation. THE guide line value of immovable property has been doubled, and its real price is also gone up. THErefore, the second defendant is interested in denying the truth of the agreement in order to get more profitable price from purchasers. THE plaintiff is entitled to a sale of site Nos.31 & 32. Hence, the suit.

(3.) ON the above pleading the learned trial Judge has framed as many as 6 issues for trial. ON the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.21 were marked. ON the side of the defendants, the first defendant has examined himself as D.W.1 besides examining one Thiyagarajan as D.W.2. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 were marked on the side of the defendants.