M SUBRAMANIYAM (DIED) Vs. T ABARANJI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgement and decree dated 26.11.2014 made in A.S.No.32 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore, confirming the judgement and decree dated 23.08.2011 made in O.S.No.96 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vellore.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreeing to sell the suit property entered into an agreement dated 24.11.2004 for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- with her and received an advance of Rs.5,00,000/-. The defendant undertook to execute and register the sale deed at the time of receiving the balance of the sale consideration. It was agreed between the parties that time for performing their respective obligation under the contract was three years. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the obligation by paying the entire sale consideration and get the document executed and registered at the time of entering into the agreement itself, the defendant wanted to have three years time. Since the defendant is not forthcoming to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff issued a notice on 19.09.2005 calling upon him to perform his part of the obligation, which was responded to by the defendant via reply notice dated 30.09.2005, wherein, the defendant stated that since his son incurred loss in the business, he executed the agreement to sell for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- as security, and it was not intended to be acted upon. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.

(3.) Resisting the suit, the defendant filed the written statement denying all the averments in the plaint. The defendant had also stated that he was a Electricity Board employee and he never intended to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. It is stated by him that his son one Ravi incurred loss in business and his partner one Shankar took the defendant and his son Ravi to the plaintiff for getting a loan and for the said loan transaction, as a security, he entered into the subject agreement with the plaintiff, who was a Financier, and it was not intended to be acted upon. It is also stated in the written statement that he was regularly paying the monthly interest to the plaintiff, which he continued, even after filing the suit and mediation was conducted on November, 2006 for settlement, which did not materialise. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.