NEELAVATHI AMMAL Vs. SELVASUNDARAM NAICKER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit before the trial Court for specific performance and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed. The decree and judgment of the trial Court, were, on appeal, confirmed by the appellate Court. In the plaint it is inter alia stated that defendants 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the suit properties and that they entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 27th February, 1982 for sale of the suit properties for a consideration of Rs. 7,740. The written agreement of sale was also filed into Court. On the date of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 290/- had been paid and it was also endorsed in the agreement. The time fixed for execution of the sale deed was six months, defendants 3 to 6 according to the plaintiff-appellant gave out that they were going to purchase the properties for an enhanced price and the plaintiff understood it and rushed to the Sub-Registrar's office and presented an objection petition. The Sub Registrar endorsed on the petition stating that the plaintiff could approach a Court of law.

(2.) Written statements were filed by defendants 3 to 6 as well as defendants 7 and 8. As many as eleven issues were framed by the trial Court. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and three other witnesses and filed Exihibits A.1 to A.4. The defendants examined DWs 1 to 7 and filed Exhibits B.1 to B. 18 in support of their case. On a consideration of the above evidence, the trial Court held that there was no ground for granting a decree for specific performance and dismissed the suit. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred an appeal and the appellate Court framed the following points for consideration :

(3.) Mr. S. Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant, inter alia contends that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence; especially the contents of Exhibits A.1 and A.2 were ignored and proper approach was not made by both the Courts below in appreciating the contents of the said documents. It is relevant to note in this connection that Exhibit A.2 endorsement was made on Exhibit A.1 itself. A careful consideration of the contents of Exhibit A.1 shows that the amount of Rs. 1,010 would be given by the plaintiff to the defendants on 29th February, 1982 by pledging her jewels. The endorsement Exhibit A.2 is to the effect that on 27th February, 1982 a sum of Rs. 990 had been given to the defendants and the balance of Rs. 1010 would be paid later and thereafter an endorsement would be made on Ex. A.1. A careful reading of these exhibits clearly shows that the sum of Rs. 1010 which ought to have been paid as per stipulation in Exhibit A.1 had not been paid in fact and that is the reason why both the Courts have held that Exhibits A.1 is not supported by consideration. The conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below with respect to Exhibit A.1 agreement is correct and in accordance with law. So far as the document which was held to be genuine and valid and enforceable in law by both the Courts is concerned, this Court finds that the reasons offered by both the Courts are correct in upholding the validity of that document that had been executed by defendants 3 to 8 in favour of the owners of the property.