K A KUMARESAN Vs. K S NANJUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance has preferred the second appeal aggrieved by the unanimous decisions of the Courts below refusing to grant him a decree.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that admitting the ownership of the property with the first defendant he had entered into an agreement on 11.03.1994 to purchase the same for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and also paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. It was further agreed to complete the transaction within eleven months from the date of the agreement. On 111.1994, the first defendant received a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and had made an endorsement in the sale agreement itself. Again on 29.03.1998, the plaintiff had paid balance of the sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby, the first defendant had received the entire sale consideration and made an endorsement on the sale agreement itself. As per the said endorsement, no limitation was fixed for the execution of the sale. While so, on 208.2004, defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 had executed a nominal registered sale agreement in favour of defendant No.5 to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice on 28.12004 and filed the suit on 06.01.2005. Pending the suit, defendant Nos.1 to 4 had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8. Hence, the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, has been filed for specific performance and for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 4 from alienating the suit property and also to declare the sale deed dated 05.02007, as null and void.

(3.) The first defendant filed written statement and defendant No.3 had also filed another written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 and 4. The said defendants contended that it is their joint family property and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of the first defendant. The first defendant has got only one fourth (1/4th) share in the property. The defendants also denied the execution of the sale agreement and contested that the suit itself is barred by limitation. It is further stated that on the date of the agreement dated 11.01994, defendant Nos.2 to 4 were minors, and hence, the document itself is void. They sought for dismissal of the suit.