DAKSHINAMURTHI MUDALIAR (DIED) Vs. DHANAKOTI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this Second Appeal are simple and may be thus stated.

(2.) The plaintiff's husband, Neelaveni Naicker, was the original owner of the property. He mortgaged it to a Fund at St. Thomas Mount. Unable to pay the mortgage debt he sold the house to his brother-in-law Appu Naicker for Rs. 600 (Ex. II, dated 19 September, 1907) and paid off the debt. Some time after, Appu Naicker was in need of Rs. 600 and applied to Neelavani for finding another purchaser. The latter found a willing vendee in the defendant and caused Appu Naicker to sell the property to the defendant (Ex. III, dated 26 November, 1909). At the time of the sale, the plaintiff, her husband and the defendant entered into an arrangement that the defendant should execute an agreement in favour of the plaintiff containing the following terms, viz., that the plaintiff should keep the suit house in her possession, that the plaintiff and her husband should pay regularly Rs. 4-8-0 every month or once in two months at the same rate, being the amount due at 0-12-0 per cent. per mensem for the sale amount of Rs. 600 that the plaintiff should pay the defendant the principal sum of Rs. 600 before the 14 December, 1914 and that, if payment he made in that manner, the defendant should execute and register a sale-deed for the suit house. Such an agreement was executed but is not forthcoming. The Courts below relying on Ex. I have found that its execution has been proved.

(3.) It is now admitted that no money was tendered by plaintiff within 14th December, 1914. The plaintiff continued to occupy the house. On nth June, 1918 the defendant issued a notice to quit and the plaintiff replied by Ex. IV-a relying on the agreement and sent Rs. 600 and arrears of rent Rs. 22-8-0, but the amount was rejected by the defendant. The present suit for specific performance was filed on 12 March, 1919.