N SARASWATHI AMMAL Vs. JAYARAM RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal arises out of the judgment of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in A.S. No. 292 of 1983 dated 25.1.1985, confirming the judgment of the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S. No. 1996 of 1980, dated 24.2.1983. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

(2.) The Suit was filed for specific performance to the direct defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property after the receipt of balance of sale consideration of Rs. 4,000/- and in default by the defendants on their behalf, a deed of conveyance may be executed by the Court, in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to the defendants and an agreement was entered into between the parties for the sale of the properties to the plaintiff as evidenced by document dated 26.7.1973. The agreement provided that the sale consideration of the property was Rs. 18,000/- and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid by the pliantiff on the date of the agreement and it was agreed that the balance be paid to the defendants before the completion of execution and registration of the sale deed. According to the plaintiff the document further provided that the defendants should furnish the plaintiff the encumbrance certificate for the period from 1.1.1973 to the date of agreement, namely, 26.7.1973 and that the plaintiff should get a clearance certificate from her Advocate with reference to the validity and conveying capacity of the defendants with reference to the property and the plaintiff should also take steps to vacate the tenants in occupation of portions of the property. According to the plaintiff, pursuant to the said agreement several payments were made, namely, Rs. 2,000/- on 15.10.1973, Rs. 5,000/-on 13.11.1973, Rs. 1,000/- on 1.7.1974 and Rs. 1,000/- on 5.11.1975 and thus in all the plaintiff had paid towards the sale consideration Rs. 14,000/- inclusive of the advance amount. All the payments have been duly endorsed on the agreement itself and the document further provided that the advance shall be adjusted towards sale consideration. The plaintiff would further state that she had paid Rs. 4,500/- to one Govindan in prder to get vacant possession from him of the premises in his occupation and the said Govindan had given a reciept evidencing the said fact. The plaintiff would also state that on 13.11.1973 the defendant had recieved Rs. 5,000/- and discharged the mortgage amount due in favour of one L. Subbiah 'and had delivered the document of title in respect of the property and the plaintiff had thus performed all the obligations under the document and what remained due by her was only a payment of Rs. 4,000/- being the balance of sale consideration.