KUMARASWAMY Vs. APPACHI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants. THE suit was filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement dated 24.2.1981.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the plaintiffs' case is as follows: The property which is the subject matter of the suit belongs to the 2nd defendant having been settled upon him by the 1st defendant. They are in possession of the property. An agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants, whereby the defendant agreed to convey the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/-. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid and received as advance. It was agreed that the sale should be completed within three months. The plaintiffs were ready and willing to complete the sale within the stipulated period. The defendants postponed the same and by mutual agreement, further two months period was fixed for completion of the transaction, which is evidenced by an endorsement dated 17.5.1981. Though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to complete the transaction within the extended period, the defendants evaded to perform their obligations and sought further extension of time. Accordingly, they agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 24.8.1981 and an endorsement to that effect was made on 20.7.1981. In spite of the extension, the defendants had failed to comply with the conditions of the agreement, whereupon the plaintiffs issued a notice telegraphically on 21.8.1981, to which there was no reply. A notice through the lawyer of the plaintiffs was sent on 22.8.1981. The defendants did not execute the sale, but set up a false plea that as a suit was filed by one Rangathal and Ramaswamy, they did not execute the sale. The plaintiffs have set up Rangathal and Ramaswamy as lessees to avoid the performance of the contract. The so-called lessees are none but the brother in-law and sister of the 2nd defendant. It is only the defendants, who are in possession of the property. With a view to wriggle out of the obligations, the defendants sent a notice on 16.10.1981, offering to return the advance of Rs. 25,000/-. The plaintiffs immediately rejected it by a reply on 19.10.1981. The plaintiffs have been always ready and willing to perform the part of their agreement. They have sufficient funds to complete the transactions. Hence, the suit.

(3.) THE Points: " THE agreement is dated 24.2.1981. It stipulates out that the sale will be completed within a period of three months of the date of agreement. It was extended by two months by a mutual agreement between the parties as evidence by the endorsement, dated 17.5.1981. THE agreement which had to be performed on or before 24.5.1981, thus happened to be extended till 24.7.1981. On 20.7.1981, a further extension, by mutual agreement, was made, whereby, the defendants agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 24.8.1981. In other words, the agreement was extended by a month. Thus, the defendants had agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 24.8.1981. THE plaint was signed by the plaintiffs on 4.11.1981 and was filed into court on the same day viz., on 4.11.81.