KALIAMURTHY Vs. VENKATESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2014 made in A.S.No.5 of 2013 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011 made in O.S.No.67 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Vridhachalam.

(2.) The appellant, who succeeded in the trial Court, but lost in the First Appellate Court, has come forward with this Second Appeal. The appellant is plaintiff and respondent is defendant in O.S.No.67 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Vridhachalam. The appellant filed said suit for specific performance of contract of sale agreement dated 06.03.2002 to sell the suit property and to decide the mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. and alternative relief of refund of Rs. 1,50,000/- paid by the appellant as advance. The case of the appellant is that the respondent is owner of the suit property. The respondent offered to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,10,000/-. The appellant and respondent entered into an agreement of sale dated 06.03.2002 and on that date, the appellant has paid Rs. 1,50,000/- as advance and respondent received the same. It was agreed that the appellant would pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/- on or before 06.03.2004 and get the sale deed executed in his favour. As per the said agreement, the appellant demanded the respondent personally and also through other persons to execute the sale deed, but the respondent did not come forward to execute the sale deed and he denied the agreement of sale. The respondent committed breach of contract. The appellant issued notice dated 20.02004 through his advocate calling upon the respondent to come to Sub-Registrar Office on 01.03.2004 to receive balance sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and execute the sale deed. The appellant was waiting at the Sub-Registrar Office, Thittakudi, to pay balance sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and respondent did not come to the Sub-Registrar Office. The respondent has sent reply dated 11.03.2004 making false averments stating that the respondent borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/-, appellant asked the respondent to execute the mortgage deed, took the respondent to Sub-Registrar Office, compelled him to execute the sale agreement and respondent executed sale agreement. The value of the property is more than Rs. 5,00,000/- on the date of sale agreement. Hence, the appellant filed the suit for the reliefs stated above.

(3.) The respondent filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the respondent did not agree to sell the suit property. According to the respondent, agreement of sale is forged one. The question of breach of contract does not arise. There is no necessity for the respondent to sell the suit property for Rs. 2,10,000/-.