VADIVELU MUDALIAR DIED Vs. KANNI AMMAL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S. No. 639 of 1980, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, is the appellant. Subsequent to the filing of Second Appeal, the sole appellant died and his legal representative has been brought on record as additional 2nd appellant. The sole respondent in the Second Appeal is the 1st defendant in the suit. She also died and her legal representatives have also been brought on record as additional respondents 2 to 5.

(2.) THE plaint schedule property originally belonged to the sole respondent, the 1st defendant in the suit. She sold the property to one Kannappa Mudaliar on 22.11.1967 for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. On 24.11.1967 Kannappa Mudaliar executed a reconveyance deed agreeing to reconvey the property for Rs. 13,300/- within a period of six years. But Kannappa Mudaliar did not reconvey the property as agreed, and therefore, the 1st defendant filed a suit as O.S. No. 481 of 1973, on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddalore, for specific performance of the reconveyance agreement. THE suit was decreed on 25.7.1975. Pending suit, 1st defendant entered into another agreement with the deceased plaintiff herein, as evidenced by Ex.A-1 dated 5.10.1974. THE 1st defendant agreed to convey the plaint property for a total consideration of Rs. 25,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid in cash as advance on the date of agreement. As per the agreement, the balance Rs. 5000/- has to be paid at the time, when the sale deed is to be executed. In the agreement, it is also stated about the pendency of litigation between the 1st defendant and Kannappa Mudaliar. It is stated therein, that the sale deed will be executed within a period of two months after the decree is obtained. From out of Rs. 20,000/- received as advance, the amount payable under the reconveyance agreement was deposited by the 1st defendant in Court. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has also received Rs. 5,000/-, the balance sale consideration, but since subsequently the 1st defendant disputed the same, the plaintiff to prove his bona fides deposited that amount."

(3.) IT is against the said Judgment, plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal on the following substantial question of law: " "Whether Ex.A-1 agreement of sale dated 5.10.1974 is valid in law""