NARAYANAN CHETTY Vs. MUTHIAH CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal No. 25 of 1917. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. The Defendants appeal.

(2.) Narayana Chetti, father of 4 defendant and his younger brother, Muthiah Chetti father of Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were carrying on business at Rangoon under the style of M.P.M. Rm. In the course of business one Veerappa Chettiar of the P.R.M. Firm became indebted to the firm to the extent of Re. 3,000, but was unable to pay the debt. The 2nd Plaintiff advised the agent (Alagappa) of the Defendants through P.W. 6 of the connected suit O.S. No. 90 of 1914 (examined on commission at Rangoon) to buy the suit site and that he (the 2nd Plaintiff) would "take it off him afterwards," so that Defendants firm who are not in need of the site need not lose interest (Vide Ex. G 2). The Defendants father purchased the site for Rs. 5,000 the consideration consisting partly of cash and partly of the debt due by Veerappa (Ex. A). Before it could be reconveyed to Plaintiffs it was found that out of Veerappa's two brothers, while one attested the sale-deed, the other Murugappa Chetty was disputing the validity of the sale. The Plaintiffs and Defendants father discussed the best method of satisfying him and ultimately (vide Ex. G 1), the Plaintiffs paid Rs. 1,000 to buy him off and obtained a release deed Ex. D at Rangoon. Meanwhile before the payment and execution of Ex. D were known to the parties, the Defendants father executed Ex. G in favour of plaintiffs. The document has been proved to be genuine. All the evidence oral and documentary supports it. The Plaintiff's agreed to pay Rs. 4,500 besides the Rs. 1,000 paid to Murugappa for executing Ex. D. They issued a Hundi (Ex. B) and it was cashed (Exs. F and K). The incorrect date in Ex. Flan account book of the Defendants) cannot affect the Plaintiffs case.

(3.) Thus, the Plaintiffs have proved the suit agreement, the payment of consideration and that the transaction was beneficial to the defendants firm who were anxious to part with the site to the Plaintiffs who, by offering to purchase, diminished the Defendants lose. Assuming that the proper price of the site at the time was Rs. 5,000 the Defendants if they wanted to keep the site, would have had to pay Rs. 1.000 to Murugappa. The plaintiffs by intervening and paying Rs. 5,500 (i.e., Rs. 1,000 to Murugappa and Rs. 4,500 to the Defendants firm) reduced the defendants loss from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 500. In this sense, it was beneficial to the family of the defendants who were a trading firm in need of money rather than the suit property which was not situate in the defendants village.