The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the context of specific performance and the consequences of the purchaser's failure to pay the balance sale consideration within the specified time.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in I.A.No.789 of 2015 in O.S.No.490 of 2009 dated 09.01.2018 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai by allowing this civil revision petition.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.789 of 2015 in O.S.No.490 of 2009 dated 09.01.2018 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.490 of 2009, which was filed by the respondent for specific performance based on a contract entered into between the petitioners and the respondent. The suit was decreed on 29.11.2010 and the appeal filed by the petitioners before the I Additional District Court, Madurai in A.S.No.3 of 2011 was also dismissed on 23.08.2011.

3. By claiming that the respondent/ decree holder neither paid the decree amount nor deposited the amount before the Court, the petitioners/ judgment debtors filed an application in I.A.No.789 of 2015 to rescind the contract as per Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, before the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai and it was dismissed by order dated 09.01.2022. Aggrieved over the same the civil revision petition is filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent / plaintiff has entered into a sale agreement dated 20.04.2006 with the petitioners to purchase the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.2,86,646/- within a period of four months. The plaintiff filed the suit and it was decreed by the trial Court on 29.11.2010 with a direction to the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.46,146/- as per the sale agreement dated 20.04.2006 within a period of two months and thereafter execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent, failing which the plaintiff could get the sale executed through Court. Against the same, the defendant has filed appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2011 before I Additional District Court, Madurai.

5. The learned Counsel further submits that since the respondent/plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration as directed in the decree, the petitioners/ defendants filed the above petition to rescind the contract as per Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

6. Though the respondent claim that the notice dated 28.01.2011 sent to the petitioners/defendants was returned as left no instruction on 30.11.2011, the petitioners have filed an appeal on 20.01.2011, wherein the address of the petitioners/defendants showing their address at Dindigul. Therefore even before the respondent sending the notice, the petitioners/ defendants filed an appeal. The plaintiff should have paid the amount within the time. The direction to the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute sale deed against the defendant is a condition precedent for execution of the sale deed. Even if the decree does not fix any time limit for depositing of the balance sale consideration, the provisions of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 would apply.

7. The learned Counsel further submits that sending notice is not at all necessary and the plaintiff should have deposited the balance sale consideration within the time. Further the petitioners / defendants left from the address shown in the plaint. Even this is evidence from the appeal filed by the petitioners showing their present residential address at Dindigul and the defendants cannot be be found fault. Therefore, when the plaintiff has failed to deposit the amount, sending notice to the petitioners is of no use. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments:

1. Chanda (Dead) through Lrs Vs Rattni and Another, reported in 2007(14) SCC 26;

2. Raju Naidu Vs M.Kolandaisamy and another reported in 1998 (2) CTC 585

3. Narasimhan Vs Balammal reported in 1988(2) MLJ 211

8. The learned counsel for the