LAWS(MAD)-1998-10-24

RAJU NAIDU Vs. M KOLANDAISAMY

Decided On October 28, 1998
RAJU NAIDU Appellant
V/S
M.KOLANDAISAMY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above revision is filed a'gainst the order passed by the Sub-Court, Karur in E:A. No. 16i of 1993, in E.P. No. 48 of 1992 in 0:S. No. 483 of 1980, dated 20.4.1994.

(2.) The petitioner/defendant entered into an agreement with the respondents/plaintiff BE sell the suit property for a sum of Rs. 74,000/- and he paid a sum of Rs. '24,000/- as advance. The balance was agreed to be paid on or before 12.10.1980. The said agreement was executed on 4.7.1979. Since the sale deed . was not executed as agreed, the respondents filed the suit in O.S. No. 483 of 1980, on the file of the Sub-Court, Karur and the same was decreed on 20.3.1982 directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed on or before 20.5.1982 failing which the plaintiffs were at liberty to have the sale deed executed through Court. It is relevant to mention here that no time limit was fixed for depositing the amount. Meanwhile the wife and sons of the petitioner have filed the suit in O.S. No. 531 of 1980 on the same Court for partition which was dismissed on 20.3.1982 itself. Against that judgment and decree they filed appeal in A.S. No.249 of 1982 and the petitioner filed-appeal in A.S. No. 495 of 1985 before this Court. On 12.6.1982 the respondents filed Execution Petition. In E.P. No. 38 of 1982 in O.S. No.' 483 of 1980 on 12.6.1982 and they had deposited the balance 'of consideration of Rs. 50,000/- only on 15.6.1982. The said E.P. was dismissed on 3.9.1982, in view of the stay granted by this Court in A.S. No. 249 of 1982 filed by the wife and sons of the petitioner. After dismissal of the said Execution Petition, the petitioner withdraw the amount deposited by filing an application. This Court dismissed both the abovesaid appeals on 28.11.1989: The Review Applications filed also were dismissed on 18.12.1990. Thereafter, on 27.3.1992 the respondents filed E.P. 48 of 1992 and deposited the said sum of Rs. 50,000/-on 23.4.1992.

(3.) Now the petitioner has filed the above Application in E.A. No. 161 of 1993 in E.P.. No. 48 of 1992 under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, to have the contract rescinded on account of the default on the part of the respondents herein in not depositing the bal ance sale consideration within the 'reasonable period. The same was resisted by the respondents. The Court below by the order dated 20.4.1994 rejected the same. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the above revision.