K L DAMODARAN Vs. VENKATAPPA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.85 of 2000 has come forward with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Principal District Court, Vellore made in A.S.No.115 of 2003, whereby, the learned Principal District Judge allowed the appeal reversing the judgment and decree of the Sub-Court, Gudiyatham made in O.S.No.85 of 2000 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2000 which was filed by the respondent seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 24.03.1997.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/- and had received an advance of Rs. 30,000/- on 24.03.1997. The said agreement was reduced to writing on the same day. It was agreed by the parties that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff within a period of three years from the date of the agreement viz., on or before 23.03.2000 and on such payment the defendant would execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, though he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed, the defendant has been avoiding execution of the sale deed on some pretext or the other. Contending that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contact throughout, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit seeking specific performance on 20.03.2000.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit contending that the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to sell the property is false. According to the defendant, the suit property is worth more than Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is the further contention of the defendant that the defendant had to pay monies to one Amirtham Finance, which was assigned in favour of the plaintiff by the said Finance. The plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the defendant in stamp papers stating that it is for renewal of the promissory note, the defendant who is an illiterate had signed the document only on the belief that it was a renewal for the promissory note. Therefore, according to the defendant there was no agreement of sale. It was also claimed that the cause of action alleged in the suit itself is false and the suit is barred by limitation.