Ismail, J.-The plaintiff in C.S. No. 18 of 1968 on the original side of this Court is the appellant herein. Having regard to the narrow scope of the appeal, it is unnecessary to deal with the pleadings in detail which gave rise to certain other issues and controversies raised before the learned trial Judge, but which no longer survive before us.

2. The suit instituted by the appellant is one for specific performance of an agreement to sell the premises known as “Sea View” situate at No. 27, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Madras, admittedly belonging to the respondent herein.

The respondent is the Managing Director of several mills situate in Coimbatore and other places. He is a permanent resident of Coimbatore, but was having the suit property for the purpose of his residence while going over to Madras. The case of the appellant was that she had advanced loans totalling a sum of Rs. 4,70,000 to the respondent herein by 24th December, 1966 made up of:

(1) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 paid on 14th September, 1966;

(2) another Rs. 1,00,000 paid on 15th October, 1966;

(3) yet another Rs. 1,00,000 paid on 2?th November, 1966; and

The sum of Rs. 1,70,000 paid on 24th December, 1966.

The further case of the appellant was that the respondent who promised to return the amounts by January, 1967 with profits had failed to repay the same: that when pressed for payment, he off red to sell the property referred to above; and that on 20th February, 1967 an agreement, Exhibit P-2, came to be executed by the respondent in which it was stated that the appellant hat paid in all a sum of Rs. 4,70,000 as advance for the sale of the property to her and that the terms and conditions including the price of the property were to be settled in future. It was the further case of the appellant that on 9th April, 1967 herself and the respondent entired into a detailed oral agreement which was reduced to writing on 12th April, 1967 marked as Exhibit P-1, by which the price of the property was should at Rs. 4,00,000 and the price of the furniture in the building was fix d at Rs. 1,20,000 and the appellant, having already advanced a sum of Rs. 4,70,000 paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 on that date that is, 12th April, 1967 and that the parties agreed to complete the transaction of sale within three months from that date. The further case of the appellant was that on 9th April, 1967 itself, namely, the date of the detailed oral agreement, formal possession of the suit property was given to her by the respondent, though the respondent took about a week to fully vacate the main bungalow. The appellant further alleged that the respondent wanted extension of time upto 31st December, 1967 to complete the sale and that in that connection an additional agreement marked as Exhibit P-1 (a) dated 9th July, 1967 came to be executed. The plaint makes a detailed reference to clause (d) of that agreement and states that that clause was not valid and binding. We shall have occasion to refer to that clause as well as another clause in Exhibit P-1 (a) later in the course of the judgment. The plaint proceeded to state further that in July, 1967 the respondent wanted a solatium of Rs. 5,000 and that the appellant agreed to pay that amount at the time of the execution of the sale deed and she so agreed only as a gesture of goodwill. According to her, from October, 1967 there was correspondence between the parties and under Exhibit P-15 dated 26th December, 1967 which was a letter from the respondent to the appellant, the respondent purported to cancel the agreement by virtue of clause (d) in Exhibit P-1 (a) and there was further correspondence and finally the appellant instituted the present suit praying for a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 12th April, 1967.

3. The respondent filed an elaborate and detailed written statement. In that written statement he contended that in the year 1965, he came into contact with the appellant, who was a young woman and became friendly w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document