Plaintiff's claim for specific performance was dismissed as rights were precluded by a prior decree in a related suit.

J U D G M E N T

Suit for Specific Performance based on an unregistered '' Agreement for Sale” dated 24.02.2004. The plaintiff claimed that he had entered into the sale agreement in respect of the suit property at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per cent and paid advance of Rs.3,00,000/-. Despite ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the first defendant unreasonably denying the execution of the sale deed. Hence, the suit.

2. The suit opposed by the second defendant who had entered into a registered sale agreement subsequently with the first defendant ( the owner of the property) on 02.12.2004 for a sale consideration of Rs.16,08,000/- after paying an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- though ready to pay the balance consideration of Rs.11,08,000/-. Since the first defendant did not turn up to receive the sale consideration and execute the sale deed, he filed a specific performance suit in O.S.No.282 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu and also deposited the balance sale consideration.

3. His suit for specific performance was decreed on 13.09.2006. The present suit is filed subsequent to his decree on collusion with the first defendant, as if the plaintiff has entered into an agreement prior to his agreement in respect of suit property for a sum of Rs.21,000/- per cent and paid part sale consideration by cash and part sale consideration by way of cheque, totally, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings had framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the time is essence of contract?

2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract of agreement dated

24.2.2004?

3.Whether the 1^st defendant executed sale agreement dated 02.12.2004 in favour of 2^nd defendant is true and if so binding on the plaintiff?

4. To what relief?

5. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract in agreement dated

24.02.2004.

5. The plaintiff has examined as P.W.1 and eight exhibits were marked in support of his case. On behalf of the second defendant, one witness was examined and five exhibits were marked.

6. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence held that in view of the decree passed in O.S.No.283 of 2005 in the specific performance suit filed by the second defendant, the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance based on an unregistered sale agreement even though prior in point of time is not sustainable. However, the trial court has granted the alternate relief, directing the first defendant/ vendor to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff with 12% interest p.a from the date of plaint to till the date of decree and afterwards at the rate of 6% till realization at costs.

7. Being aggrieved, the appeal is filed by the plaintiff stating that the first defendant had entered into a agreement with the second defendant after his agreement. The subsequent agreement is only a concocted and fabricated document. Earlier agreement dated 24.02.2004 will prevail over the subsequent agreement dated 02.12.2004. Since registration of agreement to sell not mandatory at that point of time. Primacy ought to have given to the earlier agreement. Even though the earlier agreement was not registered.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appellant is aware of the decree passed in the specific performance suit filed by the second defendant. Inspite of the said fact, he has not challenged the validity of the said decree. The trial Court, therefore rightly dismissed the subsequent suit for specific performance, though the agreement date was earlier got unregistered none th