LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-112

D PRAKASH Vs. G PALANIAMMAL

Decided On June 06, 2018
D Prakash Appellant
V/S
G Palaniammal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2017 made in A.S.No.38 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2016 made in O.S.No.397 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.397 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. The appellant is the plaintiff who lost in both the Courts below. He filed the above suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.04.2008. According to the appellant, the first respondent is the owner of the suit property. She appointed the second respondent as her Power Agent to deal with the property. The second respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the appellant on 09.04.2008, agreeing to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards advance cum part of sale consideration. The contract was fixed to be concluded within a period of one year. The appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the date of the agreement.

(3.) The first respondent filed written statement and submitted that she gave the suit property as collateral securities for the amounts borrowed by one Vajravel from M/s. Sri Ram Chit Funds. According to the first respondent, she executed the Power of Attorney only to maintain the property and not for sale and also submitted that it is only a sham Power of Attorney. The said Vajravel did not discharge the loan taken by him from M/s.Sri Ram Chit Funds. M/s. Sri Ram Chit Funds was taking steps to sell the property by public auction. First respondent and her son discharged the loan. The first respondent has no intention to sell the property to appellant. The first respondent cancelled the Power of Attorney against the second respondent on 18.03.2010 and hence the suit filed by the appellant is barred by limitation.