IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On :

18.10.2022

Pronounced On:

111122

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

C.S.No.690 of 2012

Ramesh Kumar Darda

...Plaintiff

Vs.

1.G.Krishnaveni alias D.S.Kumari

2.D.S.Gokul

3.Meera D.S.Kalikiri

...Defendants

PRAYER: This is a suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of High Court

Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. to,

a)Pass a decree of specific performance directing the defendants to

execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in

respect of the property, viz., No.28 (Old No.12) Erulappan Street, Chennai

600 079, more particularly described in the schedule hereunder, after

receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.71,00,000/- (Rupees

Seventy One Lakhs only) and in default thereof direct the Registrar of this

Hon'ble Court to execute and register the sale deed on behalf of the

Page No.1 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Defendants in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee;

b)Direct delivery of possession of the property, viz., No.28 (Old

No.12) Erulappan Street, Chennai 600 079, more particularly described in

the schedule hereunder, to the plaintiff;

c)For costs of the suit, including counsel's fee.

For Plaintiff : M/s.Prakash Goklaney

For D1 & D2

: Set ex-parte

For D3

: Mr.Pranava Charan

JUDGMENT

This is a suit for specific performance.

2.Plaintiff's case is that the defendants agreed to sell the suit

property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.1,31,00,000/-. The

agreement for sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the

defendants on 09.06.2011. The time for completion of sale is six months.

The defendants have to clear the pending loan with the South Indian Bank,

City Branch, Bangalore–53 within a period of six months and hand over

the original documents before the registration of sale. An advance of

Rs.35,00,000/- was paid. The plaintiff was put in possession of two shop

portions in the property. The defendants promised to negotiate with the

Page No.2 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

bank for one time settlement to enable the transaction to go through. The

plaintiff tendered a payment of Rs.60,00,000/- on behalf of the defendants

to the bank. However, the bank declined to receive the same stating that

the defendants have to comply with certain conditions. As per the

arrangement between the defendants and the bank, Rs.75,00,000/- was to

be paid by the defendants, after taking into account the sale proceeds of

another property at Jayanagar, Bangalore. At the request of the

defendants, the plaintiff provided an additional sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to

enable them to settle with the bank. The plaintiff was promised that the

documents would be obtained from the bank and handed over to him.

Since that was not happening, he issued a notice dated 06.01.2012, calling

upon the defendants to hand over the documents. During December 2011,

defendants handed over one more portion of the suit property and

permitted the plaintiff to let out to a person of his choice, in view of the

delay caused. The defendants issued notice dated 03.02.2012 making

wholly false and untenable allegations. Therefore, a suitable reply dated

16.02.2012 was sent. On 22.08.2012, the plaintiff issued a notice to the

defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour or his nominee. The

Page No.3 of 42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

defendants issued a reply dated 07.09.2012 reiterating their earlier stand

and refusing to comply with the terms of the agreement. Therefore the

suit.

3.The case of the defendants 1 and 2 in brief is as follows:

The defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the wife, son and daughter of

Mr.D.T.Sreenivas.

The suit property was in the name of

Mrs.Subbarathinamma, the mother of the 1^st defendant and grand mother

of the 2 & 3 defendant. Mrs.Subbarathinamma set