C.GUNASEKARAN Vs. P.SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original suit was instituted for specific performance of the agreement, and delivery of possession of the suit property, or in the alternative relief for return of the advance amount with interest, and for costs.

(2.) The suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff, as the relief sought for specific performance was rejected and the alternative relief of repayment of advance amount was decreed. The appeal suit was filed by the defendants/appellants. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit by stating that the suit property is situated in Murungatholuvu Village, Perundurai Taluk. The suit property partly belongs to the 1 st defendant by a sale deed dated 13.10.2008, and the other part belonged to the father of the 1st defendant, and was inherited by the defendants by succession, as legal heirs, and they proclaimed to sell the suit properties, and the plaintiff wanted to purchase the same. Therefore, the plaintiff negotiated with the defendants and they agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.11,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on 17.10.2012. A registered sale agreement was also entered into between them. It was agreed to complete the sale within three years, since there were standing crops, in which the defendants wanted to harvest. From the date of agreement, the plaintiff was always ready to perform his part of the agreement to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and get the sale deed in his favour, free of all encumbrances. But the defendants were evading the execution of the agreement, despite the fact that the plaintiff made several demands in this regard. Thus, the plaintiff issued two notices to the defendants on 15.06.2015 and 18.06.2015, calling upon them to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed. The defendants sent a reply notice and denied the contentions in the notices issued by the plaintiff. Further, replied that the said allegations are false, frivolous and vexatious. Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the civil suit.

(3.) The appellants/defendants in their written statement denied the plaint averments and it was contended that the suit itself is not maintainable. The defendants never agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and did not receive an advance amount of Rs.11,00,000/- from the plaintiff, agreeing to complete the sale within 3 years. There is no sufficient water source to the suit property to cultivate sugar cane or Plantain as alleged in the plaint. The other contention is that the plaintiff was always ready to perform his part of the agreement by paying the sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, was also denied. The agreement was not executed with an intention to sell the suit property to the plaintiff.