ORDER: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1984 in O.S.No.2066 of 1961 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit is for specific performance. The defendants in the suit are the first and the second appellants and the plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant died and his legal representatives are impleaded as appellants 3 to 6 in the appeal.

2. The plaint averments are that the mother of the defendants, by name, late R.K.Chengammal, was the owner of the house property bearing door No.28 (New.No.47), Ganga Nagar, Chennai-24 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) and when the owner expressed her intention to sell the suit property, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. In pursuance of the negotiations between the parties, late R.K.Chengammal entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.1.1977, with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.51,000 (Rupees fifty one thousand only), without any encumbrance and the plaintiff has paid an advance amount of Rs.5,000 to late R.K.Chengammal at the time of execution of the agreement of sale. The first defendant is the attesting witness to the agreement. As per the plaint allegations, the terms of the agreement provide that the execution and registration of sale deed should be completed within three months from the date of the agreement and R.K.Chengammal should also produce encumbrance certificate and other documents relating to the suit property to the plaintiff. It is stated that R.K.Chengammal did not comply with the terms and postponed the registration. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.20,000 was paid by the plaintiff to R.K.Chengammal on 23.1.1978 in the presence of the defendants and the receipt of the same was also endorsed on the last page of the agreement of sale and the defendants have signed the receipt as witnesses along with one M.A. Abbas who acted as a mediator. It is stated that the amount was paid on the assurance given by R.K.Chengammal and the defendants that the sale would be completed within a short time.

3. Further,it is stated that R.K.Chengammal died and after her death, the plaintiff has demanded the defendants that the deed of sale should be executed in her favour informing them that she was always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration. According to her, though the defendants promised several times to complete the sale deed, they failed and neglected to do so. It is stated that the first defendant for herself and as the Power of Attorney Agent of the second defendant sent a lawyer’s notice dated 28.12.1980 to the plaintiff demanding payment of rent from February, 1980 onwards and informing the plaintiff that she has committed wilful default in payment of rent and she was liable to be evicted from the suit property for which the plaintiff sent a reply on 7.1.1981 denying the allegations and demanding the defendants to execute the sale deed as per the agreement of sale. In the notice, the plaintiff has also stated that she would approach Civil Court if her requests is not complied with. The plaintiff thereafter filed the suit on 12.1.1981 alleging that the attitude and the conduct of the defendants as well as R.K.Chengammal are unreasonable and unwarranted and the defendants as legal heirs of late R.K.Chengammal, are bound to execute the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff. She has stated that she is always ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement for sale and accordingly, she filed the suit for specific performance.

4. The first defendant has filed a written statement stating that she is not disputing the agreement entered into by her mother with the plaintiff for the sale of the suit property. According to the first defendant, the sale should have been completed within a period of three months from the date of the agreement and the plaintiff had no funds to complete

Click Here to Read the rest of this document