Procedural fairness requires the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses concerning additional evidence; failure to do so violates litigative rights.

JUDGMENT :

R.N.MANJULA, J.

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 made in A.S.No.99 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvallur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 made in O.S.No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.

2. Heard Mr.N.Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.C.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for respondents 2 to 6 and Ms.P.Radhika, learned counsel for respondents 7 to 9 and perused the materials available on record.

3. The Appellant is the plaintiff, who has filed a suit for the relief of specific performance against the original defendant. The Trial Court has decreed the suit. Since the sole defendant died, the legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant preferred a First Appeal which was also allowed by dismissing the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal.

4. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The suit property belongs to the defendant Govindasamy. The defendant had executed a sale agreement dated 30.09.2004 to sell the suit property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per cent. The total extent of the suit property is 1 acre 15 cents and thus, the total sale consideration was agreed at Rs.3,99,000/-. An advance amount of Rs.1,67,600/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on the date of the sale agreement itself. The defendant had availed a loan from Indian Overseas Bank, Nazarathpet and the plaintiff has agreed to settle the loan from and out of the remaining sale consideration. The outstanding loan amount in respect of the above loan is said to be Rs.1,31,400/-. There is another loan in Land Development Bank at Poonamallee which is in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform his part of contract and approached the defendant to cooperate. But the defendant has stated that the loan is going to be waived by the bank and that the plaintiff need not settle the loan but to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the loan was still subsisting and hence, he was not able to pay the pending loan amount to the defendant. Regarding the other loan pending with the Land Development Bank also, the defendant was all along saying that it would be waived. As the plaintiff owns lands adjacent to the suit property, he has taken possession of the suit property on the date of sale agreement itself and the status of the sale deed also would read the same. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the possession of the property was handed over to him as part performance of contract. However, the defendant did not take any steps to settle either of his loans. As the defendant did not complete the contract, the plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2006. The defendant on receipt of the legal notice did not send any reply. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance.

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

The suit is false, frivolous and vexatious one. The defendant used to borrow small amounts from the plaintiff to meet his immediate needs. The plaintiff compelled the defendant to repay the debts. As the defendant was unable to repay the debts, the plaintiff coerced the defendant to sign the suit sale agreement by putting him under threat. The defendant never agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,99,000/- as alleged and that he never asked the plaintiff to discharge any of the loan amounts. The plaintiff has not pai