J U D G M E N T

The appeal filed by the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance seeking execution of the sale deed as per the registered sale agreement dated 22.08.1983 or in alternate to repay the advance money Rs.12,32,000/- with future interest at 12% per annum for the principal amount of Rs.11,00,000/-.

2.The trial Court granted the alternate relief of refund of advanced money with interest. Not being satisfied with the relief granted, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

3.The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint:

The suit schedule properties belongs to the first defendant. He got the property under a partition deed dated 06.12.1982 and a registered sale deed dated 22.08.1983. The suit land is about 4,047 sq.ft. 9 cents and 153 ½ cents. The plaintiff was a tenant under the first defendant in a portion of suit property measuring of 1000 sq.ft. The plaintiff became the tenant in the year 1998 and running an Industry in the said place as a proprietorship concern under the name and style of “J.Pee.Tee.Engineering Industry”. He paid Rs.30,000/- as advance and put up a hollow block structure with a cement sheet measuring 37X 17 feet. Besides the hollow block structure, the plaintiff also in occupation of 17X 17 feet vacant site. Rent for the said premise was fixed as Rs.1000/-. The plaintiff regularly paying the rent to the first defendant. The first defendant offered to sell the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff also agreed to buy the same which incudes site, which was in occupation of the defendants 2 and 3 besides the plaintiff. On 26.12.2003, a sale agreement was entered into between the first defendant and the plaintiff. The sale agreement deed was registered on 05.01.2004. The first defendant acknowledged the receipt of the advance money and also promised to execute the sale deed within a period of 11 months. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The first defendant is duty bound to clear certain formalities such as to demolish the structures available in the suit property, to vacate the tenants in the suit property, to produce the original documents for verification, to survey the land and fix the boundaries. The first defendant had not chosen to comply with any of these requirements. The plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the balance sale consideration and this fact was made known to the first defendant on several occasion. He is ready and willing to deposit the balance sale consideration into the Court as and when the Hon'ble Court directs him to deposit. The plaintiff met the first defendant and requested him to complete the formality and executed the sale deed on the day fixed. The first defendant has not taken any steps to complete the formality. Therefore, the plaintiff issued notice to the first respondent on 17.11.2004, demanding him to fix a day for execution of the sale deed. The first defendant, though received notice, did not come forward to execute the sale deed. A reply was sent on 23.11.2004, refusing to execute the sale deed.

4.In the reply, the first defendant had stated that there was no consideration passed under the document and the sale agreement is not a valid document. Being a registered document, denying the validity of the said document clearly shows the intention of the first defendant to wriggle out from the contract. In the said reply, the first defendant, beside questioning the validity of the sale agreement also alleged willful default of payment of rent of Rs.3,29,355/-. The second and third defendants are formal parties, who are the tenants under the first defendant. Since the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant is to sell the vacant land, the defendants 2 and 3 who are occupying the land are made as formal parties. The plaintiff laid the suit for directing the first defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property, directing th