PONNAMMAL Vs. T BALASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the judgement and decree dated 24.7.1995 passed in O.S.No.193 of 1991 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, Periyar District.

(2.) NARRATIVELY but precisely, broadly but briefly the case of the plaintiffs as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:-(a) The deceased Rangaswami gounder and his wife D1-Ponnammal and their children, namely defendants 2 to 8 entered into the suit agreement to sell with the plaintiffs dated 27.3.1987, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to purchase from the defendants the suit property measuring an extent of 3 acres of land for a sum of Rs.3,48,000/- The stipulations contained therein are to the effect that the plaintiffs should carve out plots and sell them to various persons and pay the proportionate amounts as and when they receive the sale consideration from the purchasers of the plots, in addition to the condition that the plaintiffs also at their discretion purchase, on outright basis the entire suit property as one lot. The time stipulated for performance was one year. (b) The plaintiffs, in commensurate with the agreement to sell, effected changes in the land, so as to make it fit for being sold as contemplated supra and the plaintiffs have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. To their surprise and shock the land owners sent a registered notice dated 24.3.1988 calling upon the plaintiffs to complete the sale transactions on or before 27.3.1988 and they intended to make the time as the essence of the contract. A corrigendum was also sent by them incorporating the schedule of property, which was earlier left out in their notice. (c) The plaintiffs sent a reply narrating as to how the defendants' notices were defective, that the earlier notice reached beyond the date stipulated for performance and that as per the said agreement, time was not the essence of contract. (d) The plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit property under the said agreement to sell by way of part performance. The plaintiffs issued notice dated 22.3.1991 calling upon the defendants to be present at 10.00 a.m on 26.3.1991 at the Sub-Registrar office concerned for executing the sale deed after receiving the remaining part of the sale consideration, however, the defendants did not comply with the request of the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE warp and woof of the reply statement filed by the first plaintiff and adopted by the other plaintiffs is mostly denial in nature as against the averments/allegations in the written statement, as though the plaintiffs drew a plan and submitted the same to the authorities concerned for obtaining sanction of the lay out to the knowledge of the defendants.