T POPPAN Vs. KARIA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and the Cross-objection are taken up for hearing for convenience sake inasmuch as the question of law involved in both the matters are identical.

(2.) . The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit against the defendant No. 1 for decree for specific performance for sale of an immovable property being a single-storied house standing on Survey No. 250, measuring an area of 500 sq. mt. situated at Dollygunj in Port Blair Tahsil, South Andaman, Andaman District (hereinafter referred to as the "said property"). After filing of the suit, it was discovered that the said property was sold to defendant No. 3. So, plaint was amended and thereby the aforesaid claim was changed by the plaintiff asking relief for specific performance of the contract against the defendant No. 3 and for declaration that the aforesaid sale being null and void and for perpetual injunction for obtaining possession of the said property. The defendant No. 2 was impleaded as party, since at the time of filing of the suit, it was apprehended by the plaintiffs that the said property might be sold to him defeating their claim. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have jointly filed written statement. The defendant No. 3 has filed separate written statement.

(3.) The short case of the plaintiffs is that by and under an oral agreement in or about second week of November, 1992, the first defendant being in need of money for sending his son to mainland for medical treatment, approached the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. At that time the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell and the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the said property at a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. So, sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid as and by way of advance and/or part payment for such sale and purchase of the said property. The aforesaid payment was made and oral agreement was entered into by and between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 in presence of various persons. After return from the mainland the first defendant, however, in breach of the said oral agreement did not sell the said property. As such, the aforesaid suit was filed. The plaintiffs at all material times had and still have been ready and willing to pay the balance amount of consideration to purchase the said property. The plaintiffs through their learned lawyer, demanded by a letter dated 19th December, 1993 for specific performance of such oral agreement.