K MURALI Vs. D ANBARASI PACKIARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 to 3 who suffered a decree for recovery of money preferred the above appeal.

(2.) The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that she entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant on 24.10.1999. As per the agreement, 9 items of the properties mentioned were agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per cent. The plaintiff/respondent claimed to have paid a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs towards sale consideration as advance which was acknowledged under the said agreement itself. Though the respondent/plaintiff agreed to complete the sale by paying the balance sale consideration, the appellants/defendants were evading by not producing parent deeds. Despite the efforts of the respondent/plaintiff being ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the appellants/defendants did not come forward to take the sale consideration and execute the sale deed.

(3.) It was further stated that the defendants were trying to alienate the agreement mentioned properties to third parties constraining the respondent/plaintiff to file the suit in O.S.No.414 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai for injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from alienating the properties. Despite filing of the suit, the appellants/defendants had sold the properties covered under the sale agreement to third parties. As there is breach of contract, the respondent/plaintiff rescinded the contract and issued legal notice demanding a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs with interest paid as sale advance. The second appellant/defendant received the notice but did not choose to reply. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 28,66,660/-.