M JAYAKUMAR Vs. MINOR GEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 68 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram is the appellant.

(2.) THE Plaintiff/appellant has filed O.S. No. 68 of 1988 for specific performance of the contract praying to direct the defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7 to execute a sale deed in his favour conveying the suit property to him after deposit of the balance sale consideration; directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property to him and for costs.

(3.) THE first defendant filed a written statement and also an additional written statement. THE main defence of the first defendant was that the plaintiff has manipulated and fabricated the alleged registered deed of agreement dated 27.05.1987. In view of the fact that the first defendant was a drunkard, taking advantage of his drunkenness, fraud has been committed by the plaintiff by obtaining the signature of the first defendant in blank stamp papers and it has been pressed into the service by the plaintiff. It is totally false to state that the first defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. He would further contend that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and above all these things, the agreement of sale cannot bind him nor the second and third defendants, who are admittedly minors. THErefore, even if any sale agreement was in existence, it will not take away the shares of defendants 2 and 3. Further, since the property has been sold subsequently on 07.01.1988, the present suit for specific performance, based on the agreement on 27.05.1987, is legally not sustainable. Only after issuance of the suit notice, the first defendant came to know that the plaintiff has fabricated an agreement. It is also false to state that the defendants 4 and 5 conspired to get the sale deed dated 07.01.1988 to defeat the right of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit relief.