IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.10.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE O.S.A.No.121 of 2021 S.Rajeswari .. Appellant Vs.

C.Parimala .. Respondent Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 12.08.2020 passed in C.S.No.513 of 2006.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Sadasharam For Respondent : Mr.R.Thiagarajan

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

The plaintiff in the suit in C.S.No.513 of 2006, filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 28.10.2005, is the appellant in this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows :

2.1. The defendant who is the owner of the suit property, entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 28.10.2005, agreeing to sell the property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.48,00,000/-. As per the terms of the agreement, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by cash on the date of agreement and a receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- was also acknowledged. The balance sum of Rs.43,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Both parties mutually agreed that the sale transaction should be completed within a period of three months from the date of agreement and time can be extended for a period of another two months, if it is required by the vendor.

2.2. The vendor agreed to hand over the vacant possession of the property on the date of execution of the sale deed, on receipt of the balance sale consideration. The vendor also agreed to hand over all the title deeds in respect of the suit property to the plaintiff, discharging the bank dues payable by the vendor to the UCO Bank. The vendor declared that there is no other subsisting encumberance over the suit property. Both parties mutually agreed that they should not violate any of the terms and conditions of the agreement.

2.3. After the date of agreement, it is also admitted that the defendant had discharged the outstanding loan on 28.03.2006. Even though time was specified in the agreement, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he was demanding the defendant to execute the sale deed on receipt of balance of sale consideration. However, the defendant sent a notice on 24.06.2006, which is marked as Ex.P3 to the plaintiff, calling upon her to receive the amount, which was received by the defendant on various dates, i.e., a sum of Rs.13,30,000/-, pursuant to the sale agreement. In the said notice, the defendant came forward with a specific case that the plaintiff who had agreed to complete the sale transaction within three months from 28.01.2006, had not come forward to pay the balance and therefore, the agreement had come to an end.

2.4. The plaintiff immediately sent a reply under Ex.P5 dated 29.06.2006, stating that the defendant failed to clear the loan amount due to UCO Bank as undertaken by her. Further, it is stated that the defendant also failed to vacate and hand over the possession of the property as agreed in the sale agreement. I is also stated that the defendant who had agreed to vacate the tenants from the suit property, failed to hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff.

2.5. It is further stated in the reply notice that the plaintiff used to contact the defendant over phone weekly twice expressing her willingness to complete the transaction and she was having the balance of sale consideration readily available and that it is the defendant who failed to initiate action to get the tenants vacated, so that vacant possession can be handed over to the plaintiff.

2.6. The essence of the reply of the plaintiff is that the defendant has no locus standi to withdraw from the sale agreement and hence, called upon the defendant to withdraw the notice and express her readiness before 30.06.2006 so that the plaintiff will be able to get the sale deed prepared to proceed with the registr