Suit for specific performance filed by the nominee or assignee not sustainable.

K.GOVINDARAJAN, J.

The above appeals are directed against the common judgement and decree in C.S.No.279/82 and in C.S.No.1577/1982 dated 21.12.1993.

2. The first respondent in OSA.No.184/94 filed the suit in C.S.No.279/82 seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 21.1.1972 entered into between the appellant and the first respondent by executing and registering necessary sale deeds in favour of the first respondent and /or their nominees in respect of the balance of 30 grounds. Alternatively, they have prayed for damages of Rs.10,000/-. It is also prayed for compensation of Rs.1,11,000/- and for consequential injunction.

3.For easy reference and convenience, we refer the ranks of the parties as mentioned in O.S.A.184/1994.

4. The second respondent herein filed another suit in C.S.No.1577 of 1988 for specific performance of the agreement dated 17.5.1978 entered into with the first respondent with reference to 24 grounds in S.No.495/1, 495/3 and 496 of Perambur village.

5.The first respondent firm was converted into proprietary concern and the proprietor V.Jaganatha Mudaliar died pending appeal and his son J.Soundararajan has been impleaded as 3rd respondent in both the appeals.

6.On 21.1.1972 an agreement of sale was entered into between the appellant and the first respondent to sell 100 grounds of land for a sale consideration of 3,70,000/- in S.Nos.495/1, 495/3 and 496, Perambur Village. According to the said agreement, time for completing the sale is six months and the entire sale consideration should be paid within three months failing which the same should be paid at least within another three months with 10% interest. Though an application was made by the first respondent for approval of lay-out, the first respondent has not paid the charges as demanded by the Corporation. Thereafter the first respondent was called upon to complete the transaction within 60 days by the appellant in the letter dated 4.7.75. At the request of the first respondent the time was extended till 31.12.75. In the letter dated 21.11.75, the appellant cancelled the agreement. Similar letter was also sent on 16.1.1976. On 25.6.76, the appellant agreed to revive the transaction on condition that the balance amount to be paid on or before 31.10.1976 and the lay out sanction should be obtained from the Corporation. It is also stated that the sale deeds can be executed only after paying the entire amount. In the meanwhile the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 came into force with effect from 3.8.1976. In view of that, the first respondent requested the appellant to obtain exemption from the provisions of the said Act from the Government. The appellant sent a lawyer's notice on 25.11.77 terminating the agreement. Ultimately the Government accorded exemption in G.O.Ms.No.2097 dated 26.9.1981. Once again the appellant had cancelled the agreement on 22.10.l981 as the first respondent has not paid the entire amount and got the sale deed executed. So, the first respondent filed the suit in C.S.No.279/82.

7. The 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.1577/88 on 9.12.88 on the basis of the agreement dated 17.5.78 entered into with the first respondent. The 2nd respondent entered into an agreement earlier on 6.6.72 to purchase about 78 grounds. They could purchase only 31 ground and 1978 sq.ft. Since they could not purchase the balance they had given up their right in the agreement with respect to the same. Subsequently on 17.5.78 again, the second respondent entered into agreement with the first respondent for the purchase of 24 grounds. On the basis that the first respondent has not executed the sale deed as agreed, they filed the said suit, for the relief of specific performance.

8. The appellant filed a written statement alleging that time is essence of contract and the first respondent was not ready and willing at any point of time to purchase the property by performing his obligation under the agreem