JUDGMENT: First defendant is the appellant. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Cuddalore in A.S.No.167 of 1992, dated 15.9.1993, D-l has preferred this second appeal. Under the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore in O.S.No.202 of 1989, dated 11.3.1992) granting decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs and directed the first defendant to execute the sale deed.

2. The suit property relates to house site in T.S.No.1616 of Cuddalore Sudarsanam Street. Case of plaintiffs is that D-l has entered into an agreement of sale on 14.4.1980 for Rs.10,700. The suit property was the subject matter of litigation in the earlier suit and proceedings in S.A.No.1175 of 1966. Possession was about to be taken through the process of Court. Sale consideration of Rs.3,000 paid as advance under the earlier agreement of sale dated 3.10.1971 was adjusted towards the sale consideration under the suit agreement. Further, on the date of agreement of sale, plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs.1,000 to D-l besides another sum of Rs.700 received by D-l already; in all total sum of Rs.4,700 was received by D-l treated as advance for the sale consideration. Balance of Rs.6,000 alone remained to be paid. Under the agreement, D-l has agreed to execute the sale deed within one month from the date of taking delivery of possession through Court. D-l received further sum of Rs.2,001 on various dates in the year 1983. D-l in collusion with D-2 to D-4 seems to have taken delivery of the property outside the Court in the second week of February, 1989. Plaintiffs are always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and obtain the conveyance from the defendants. According to plaintiffs, a sum of Rs.3,999 alone is payable. Further the plaintiffs have expressed their willingness to pay the entire amount of balance sale consideration of Rs.6,000 if the Court finds that the sum of Rs.2,001 cannot be deducted from out of the sale consideration. Since the first defendant has not executed the sale deed and performed his part of the contract, plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance.

3. Denying the plaint averments, D-l has filed the written statement denying the validity and genuineness of the suit agreement dated 14.4.1980. D-l has already entered into an agreement of conveyance with second plaintiff under written agreement dated 3.10.1971. Since the second plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and have the sale deed executed, as per the terms of that sale agreement, the agreement of sale dated 3.10.1971 stands cancelled. The suit agreement is brought into existence in the name of the plaintiffs as they are powerful and influential. The said agreement is a sham and nominal document and as such invalid and unenforceable.

4. Denying the plaint averments, defendants 2 and 3 have also filed separate written statements. Second defendant has claimed title to the suit property through a registered Settlement Deed dated 6.9.1971 and denied 1 st defendant’s right to execute the sale deed. According to defendant 2 and 3, the Settlement Deed is true and valid, accepted and acted upon and that defendants 2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property claiming title under Pachaiammal.

5. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed five issues. On issue Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court found that Ex.A-1-agreement of sale is true and genuine. Case of plaintiffs that a sum of Rs.2,001 was paid to D-l under Exs.A-2 to A-5-receipts, was not accepted by the trial Court on the ground that there are no recitals in Exs.A-2 to A-5 that they relate to Ex.A-1-suit agreement of sale. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs are to pay Rs.6,000 to D-l. The trial Court rejected the defence version denying the genuineness of Ex.A-1 and directed D-l to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

6. Confirming the judgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document