O R D E R

The applicant herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondents herein are the defendants.

2. The suit has been filed for the following prayers.

i) Direct the Defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.2,47,37,753/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty Seven Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Three only) (i.e. Rs.2,10,00,000/- under Demand promissory notes 15.09.2019/24.09.2019; dated 30.12.2019; and 01.02.2020 executed by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff and Rs.37,37,753/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Three only) towards interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the respective dates of the Demand Promissory Notes till 16.09.2020); ii) Direct the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff future interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the Demand Promissory Notes of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees two Crores Ten Lakhs only) from the date of the plaint till the realization of the payment.

iii) Direct the defendants to pay cost of the suit.

3. The facts which gave rise to the present dispute are briefly stated hereunder.

(a) The applicant/plaintiff was looking for house property in and around Kottivakkam and she had come to know that the Respondents/ defendants was owing a property situated at Plot No.B-40, AGS Staff Cooperative Building Society Layout, now known as AGS Colony, Kottivakkam Village, Shozhinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. (b) Evincing interest in the schedule property, she appeared to have expressed her inclination for buying the property through outright sale. While the decision was taken to purchase the property, the plaintiff also appeared to have expressed her reservation in regard to a discrepancy in the extent of the land which is shown in the sale deed as 2 grounds and 172 sq.ft. (i.e., 4972 sq.ft.), but the extent shown in the patta was only 4307 sq.ft., having a short fall of 660 sq.ft. patta. According to the plaintiff, the defendants volunteered to rectify the error and the discrepancy in the patta and on the basis of the assurance, the plaintiff entered into a sale agreement on 15/24.09.2019. At the time, when the sale agreement was entered into, Rs.49,50,000/- had been paid as advance. The total consideration fixed for the sale of the subject property was Rs.9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores only).

(c) It was mutually agreed in terms of the sale agreement that the sale transaction would be completed by 06.11.2019 and the balance sale consideration would be settled before the said date. For the amount received by the defendants as advance from the plaintiff, the defendants appeared to have executed a demand promissory note dated 15/24.09.2019 in terms of Clause 11 and Clause 12 of the sale agreement. There were other conditions in the sale agreement like, in case of failure to execute the sale deed, the defendants were to return the advance amount paid along with the liquidated damages of Rs.5 lakhs, without prejudice to the rights of purchaser to claim specific performance.

(d) It transpired subsequently that the defendants could not rectify the discrepancy in the patta relating to the shortfall in the extent of the property. In terms of the agreement between the parties as provided in clause 4, rectification of patta was a condition precedent for completion of the sale transaction, which according to the applicant/ plaintiff, the defendants failed to discharge their obligation.

(e) According to the applicant/plaintiff, the defendants had approached her to extend further time for completion of the sale transaction and she readily agreed for the same. The respondents/ defendants, at this, insisted further advance of Rs.50 lakhs and accordingly, the applicant/plaintiff paid another sum of Rs.49,50,000/- and in total, the advance paid to the respondents/defendants was Rs.99,00,000/-. When the second payment was made, the sale consideration which was originally fixed at Rs.9,00,00,000/- had also been reduced substantial