Ramaprasada Rao, J.- The plaintiff in O.S. No. 65 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore is the appellant. The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement of sale contained in Exhibit A-1 dated 10th June, 1965. Her case is that the first defendant, who is the father of defendants 2 to 7, entered into such an agreement of sale to sell the suit properties for a sum and consideration of Rs. 18,500. Under the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 8,001 was to be paid on the date of the registration of the agreement and the balance to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale-deed. A period of two years for performance of the contract was provided for. The agreement also provided that or default by the first defendant to execute the agreement in terms thereof, the plaintiff would be entitled to enforce the agreement by a suit and also recover damages from the first defendant. Expressly it was provided that if the plaintiff committed default, she should forfeit a sum of Rs. i,000 from the sum of Rs. 8,001 and the balance should be paid back by her with interest to the plaintiff. A separate agreement Exhibit A-5 was also entered into almost contemporaneously with Exhibit A-l with which we are not very much concerned in this case. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant defaulted. After causing the suit notice Exhibit A-6 to be issued to the first defendant and on the first defendant repudiating his obligation under the agreement of sale, the plaintiff came to Court.

2. The case of the first defendant is that the properties which are the subject-matter of the agreement of sale are joint family properties of defendants 1 to 7 and in that sense the agreement entered into by him is not enforceable. He would also contend that much against his wish the plaintiff incorporated a recital in Exhibit A-1 that the properties are his self-acquired properties and also complained that the default clause was unconscionable and highly onerous. He would throw the blame on the plaintiff as a party, who was initially unwilling to implement the agreement and would state that the plaintiff has come up with this suit, since the properties have risen considerably in value. Defendants 2, 3 and 6 to 11 adopted the written statement of the first defendant in respect of the nature of the suit properties and they would also add that the agreement is unenforceable. Defendants 4 and 5 remained ex parte,

3. On the above material pleadings, the following issues were framed.

(1) Whether the properties in Schedule A and B of the plaint schedule belong to the joint family of 1st defendant and his sons?

(2) Whether the suit agreement is not enforceable for all or tor any of, the reasons stated by the defendants?

(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration of 1st defendant’s title to the suit properties ?

(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance for sale of the A Schedule properties and for possession and for a security over the properties in Schedule B of the plaint schedule as provided in the suit agreement?

(5) Whether defendants 2 and 5 are estopped from denying 1st defendant’s title to the suit properties?

(6) Whether the lease alleged in favour of defendants 8 to 11 is true and valid and binding on plaintiff ?

(7) Whether defendants 8 to 11 are tenants within the meaning of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act?

(8) Whether in the event of the Court holding that 1st defendant has no title to the suit properties plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 8,001 and interest thereon with a charge on the suit properties and also Rs. 5,500 as damages as claimed in the plaint?

(9) To what relief is plaintiff entitled?

4. The learned trial Judge gave a money decree in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 8,001 with interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of Exhibit A-5 till payment and also passed a decree in the sum of Rs. 5,500 by way of damages for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document