JUDGMENT :

Prayer: First Appeal has been filed under Order 41 Rule (1) of the r/w Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 made in O.S. No.22 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

The Appeal Suit has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 made in O.S. No.22 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

2. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for Specific Performance in respect of the sale agreement dated 02.02.2006, directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in his favour after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- from and in default this court to execute the sale deed and convey the suit property belonging to the defendant in his favour or in the alternative, direct the defendant to refund a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 02.02.2006 till payment. The defendant in O.S.No.22 of 2007.

The averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows: There is a concluded contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale of a landed property in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly a sale agreement dated 02.02.2006 was executed bilaterally by the defendant on one hand and the plaintiff on the other hand for the sale of two adjacent vacant land house sites measuring totally to an extent of 3603 sq.ft. situated at Kumaran Nagar, Saram Revenue Village, comprised in Cadastre Nos.1056 ½ part 1046 2/2 part, Re-survey No.17/1 C for due consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and the defendant had received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff towards the advance amount of sale consideration at the time of executing the said agreement.

3. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the defendant should produce the title deeds of the suit property and other relevant documents on or before 25.06.2006 and complete the sale. The plaintiff has expressed his readiness and willingness to purchase the suit property from the defendant on several occasions through his relatives and also by direct phone calls. However, for the reasons best known to him, the defendant was postponding the execution of sale deed for one reason or other. When the plaintiff's brother in law by name Jayaraman approached the defendant on 25.03.2006 to pay the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-, the defendant has informed that he has to get the patta copy and field map and therefore he required some time.

4. While so, when the said Jayaraman has subsequently visited the suit property, found one Sithanandam in occupation of a portion of the suit property by putting up a new thatched hut. The said Jayaraman immediately brought this to the knowledge of the defendant. The defendant assured him that shortly, he would ask the said Sithanandam to remove the hut put up by him. But till date, the defendant has not done so. But to his surprise, the defendant sent a lawyer's notice on 21.09.2006 calling upon the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed in his favour by paying the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff received the said notice and sent a reply on 06.12.2006 through his counsel expressing his readiness and willingness to purchase the suit property by paying the entire balance sale consideration and further requested the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property, after removing the thatched hut put by the third party in the suit property. Moreover, as per the terms of the sale agreement, the defendant is bound to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Since the defendant failed to do so, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for specific performance.

5. The averments in the written statement filed by the defendant in brief, are as follows:

6. It is true that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement dated 02.02.2006 for sale of suit property and the total sale consideration for the suit property was fixed at Rs.15,00,000