KRISHNAMMAL @ GNANAMANI Vs. TAMILMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.46 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jeyangondam are the appellants in this second appeal.

(2.) The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for specific performance on the basis of the the sale agreement dated 25.01.1976. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants owed money to the plaintiffs, by way of promissory notes and unable to discharge the same, it is stated that in respect of the amount due, the defendants agree to covey the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly incorporating the necessary recitals as regards the adjustment of the sale consideration for the amount due and also the advance amount as well as the balance amount, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the sale agreement had been entered into between the parties fixing three years period for completing the sale transaction, by paying the balance amount and inasmuch as the defendants had not come forward to execute the sale deed, despite the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) The defence has been taken by the defendants contending that there has been no sale agreement in respect of the suit property between the parties as claimed by the plaintiffs and the defendants at no point of time agreed to convey the suit property to the plaintiffs and inasmuch as there had been money transactions between the parties, the plaintiffs used to obtain the signature of the first defendant and making use of the same, the sale agreement had come to be concocted by the plaintiffs and the defendants have also thrown a challenge to the alleged payments made under the promissory notes dated 25.01.1976 and 29.06.1972 and therefore, according to the defendants, as there had been no consensus ad item between the parties for the sale of the suit property, the plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain the reliefs sought for.