MAHALINGAM Vs. GURUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.145 of 2004 aggrieved by the decree for specific performance granted against him and defendants 1 and 2 by the Courts below, has come up with the second appeal.

(2.) According to the respondent/plaintiff, the suit properties belonged to defendants 1 and 2. They agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakhs only) and had received an advance of Rs.75,000/- on 12.06.1999. The terms of the said agreement were reduced into writing on the said date and a period of four months was fixed for payment of balance sale consideration and execution of the sale deed. Claiming that the defendants 1 and 2 had not come forward to execute the sale deed, despite demands and the defendants 1 and 2 had sold the properties in favour of the 3rd defendant under a Sale Deed dated 21.09.1999, the plaintiff sued for specific performance, impleading the 3rd defendant, who was a subsequent purchaser of the suit properties. It was also pleaded that the 3 rd defendant is not a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the agreement.

(3.) Expectedly, the defendants 1 and 2, the agreement vendors remained exparte. It is also in evidence that the 1st defendant cancelled the sale deed executed by him in favour of the 3rd defendant a day after the presentation of the above suit for specific performance on 13.10.1999.