V.R.NATESAN Vs. SUNDARAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit for specific performance is the appellant.

(2.) The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants 1 to 3 and one Chinnaraj on 16.01.2007, for purchasing the suit property belonging to them at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. A period of six months time was fixed for the completion of the sale. The property originally belonged to one Rangaiah Gowder and his wife is the first defendant and his daughters are the second and third defendants. Chinnaraj is his son. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per the sale agreement, the defendants were evading the same. However, it is stated that the defendants sent a telegram on 14.07.2007 to the plaintiff calling upon him to pay the balance of the sale consideration and to obtain the sale deed in his favour on or before 16.07.2007. On receipt of the same, the plaintiff had also sent a suitable reply telegram stating that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and went to the Sub Registrar Office on the date fixed by the defendants to complete the sale. However, the defendants did not turn up. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 19.06.2008. But the said notice was returned with the endorsement "no such addresses". Thereafter, after ascertaining new address of the defendants, another notice was sent on 30.04.2009 to the defendants to the new address. On receipt of the said notice, Chinnaraj, who was owner of 1/4th portion of the suit property voluntarily came forward to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 21.09.2009. The defendants 1 to 3 though are bound to execute the sale deed with respect to 3/4th of the share had not performed their part of the contract. Hence, the suit in O.S.No.739 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, was filed.

(3.) Denying the averments made in the plaint, the defendants filed the written statement contending that the plaintiff was never ready and wiling to perform his part of the contract within six months, as agreed in the agreement by paying the balance of the sale consideration. As the plaintiff was not ready and willing, a telegram was sent. It is further contended that the plaintiff had not replied to the telegram and his claim that he was present in the Sub Registrar office on the date fixed by the defendants with the balance of sale consideration and was willing to perform his part of the contract, however, the defendants did not turn up is not true. It is also stated that a suit in O.S.No.316 of 2007 was filed on the file of the District Munsif, Mettupalayam, by the defendants against their brother Chinnaraj for partition. The said suit was decreed in favour of the defendants based on which the said Chinnaraj had executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to his 1/4th share. The defendants further contended that the said Chinnaraj was colluding with the plaintiff and was acting against the interest of the defendants. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the suit.