LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-555

AN VAIRAVAN Vs. GNANASEKARAN

Decided On August 03, 2009
AN.VAIRAVAN Appellant
V/S
GNANASEKARAN AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been preferred by the defendants 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the suit. THE suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking relief of specific performance of the contract dated 20.06.1983 or in the alternative for the return of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs with future interest.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in a nut shell is as follows: THE suit property is a house situated in Colony Road, Thillainagar, Trichy-18. It originally belonged to one VE.A.VE.Meyyammai Achi wife of Vairavan Chettiar. THE said VE.A.VE.Meyyammai Achi in a sound disposing state of mind executed a will dated 15.01.1977. In the said will, she appointed her husband as the Executor and Trustee. Under the will the Executor was directed to take possession and obtained probate letter. THE said Executor shall have the power to dispose of any of the properties mentioned and any such action by him shall not be liable to be questioned by any person claiming under the will. THE Executor is also under no obligation to render any accounts to anyone. If the Executor dies before carrying out the directions mentioned under the will, then the Trustees and Executors appointed by him under his will in respect of his properties shall "IPSO FACTO" become the Trustees and Executors of the will of VE.A.VE.Meyyammai Achi. THE said VE.A.VE.Meyyammai Achi dies on 12.02.1977. THE husband Vairavan Chettiar applied for grant of probate in O.P No.122 of 1977 on the file of District Court, Trichy and pending the said proceeding, he died. THEreafter, the defendants 1 and 2 who are the Executors-Trustees under the will of Vairavan Chettiar got themselves impleaded as parties and got the probate of the will on 15.04.1978.

(3.) AGAIN on 17.03.1987, another notice was given, but no reply has been given by the defendants to the subsequent notice. Hence, alleging that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the suit has been filed seeking the relief of specific performance with the alternative plea of return of amount paid.