Buyer not entitled to refund of amount paid as consideration.

1. The plaintiffs who lost in both the courts below are the appellants herein. The suit

O.S. No. 1175 of 1978 was filed in the District Munsifs Court, Villupuram, for passing a preliminary decree and final decree directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, personally and also out of the charged properties set out in the plaint, a sum of Rs.4,142.50, stating as under: -

The respondents herein executed a sale deed in favour of the second plaintiff/second appellant under Exhibit A-1 dated 26. 1978 for a consideration of Rs.21,000 out of which Rs.3,000 was paid by the second appellant on the date of the sale deed. The respondents requested the appellants to postpone the registration of the sale deed till after the marriage of their daughter was finalised. The second appellant therefore did not get the sale deed registered immediately. The registration was being postponed on the pretext that the marriage of the respondents daughter had not been finalised. The appellants took the respondents word and abstained from presenting the document for registration expecting the respondents to give their final consent for registration of sale deed. In fact, on 17. 1978 the first appellant advanced a loan of Rs. 1,000 to the first respondent on a promissory note Ex.A-2 and it was agreed that the said amount would be adjusted out of the sale consideration treating the same as part of sale price. Thus the appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. On 210. 1978, the appellants met the respondents and requested them to attend the sub-registrars office for registration of the sale deed. The respondents pretended to be preoccupied and promised to attend the sub-registrars office on the afternoon on that day. However when the appellants went to the respondents house again on the afternoon, they had left their house and could not be found. There was also not enough time for presenting the document for compulsory registration. Thus, by their own default and fraudulent conduct, the respondents had prevented the appellants from getting the sale deed registered within the prescribed time. It was entirely due to the negligence and laches on the part of the respondents and their fraudulent conduct that the document could not be registered in time. The respondents were, therefore, liable to pay Rs. 1,000 to the first appellant and also to pay the first payment of Rs.3,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from 26. 1978 by way of damages for breach of contract. The appellants sent a reply under Exhibit A4 on 111. 1978, containing false and fabricated allegations. It was not true to say that inrespect of the promissory note, only a sum of Rs.500 was paid by the appellants and that they promised to pay the balance of Rs.500 later. It was further false to say that the first respondent met the plaintiffs a number of times and requested them to come and attend the registration. It was equally false to state that the first appellant had incurred a loss in the business and therefore the appellants could not have the sale deed registered. The suit was therefore filed for recovery of the moneys due to the plaintiffs.

2. The third respondent being a subsequent purchaser had been made a party to the proceedings.

.3. The first respondent contested the suit inter alia contending as follows:- The marriage of the daughter of the respondents 1 and 2 was fixed to 20.8.1978 and they required money for the marriage expenses from the appellants. It was not true to say that respondents 1 and 2 requested the appellants to postpone the registration on account of the marriage, till the marriage of their daughter was finalised. The appellants had no where-withal to pay the balance in time and as such the registration was postponed. For meeting the marriage expenses of their daughter, respondents 1 and 2 pressed the appellants for payment of the balance and they represented that they had no cash at that time and respon