The court reinforced that specific performance can be granted even if inadequacy of consideration is alleged, provided the sale agreement is valid and properly executed.

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2021 made in O.S.No.48 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District Court, Dindigul. The third defendant is the appellant herein. It was a suit for specific performance. The Court below by the impugned judgment and decree directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.26,50,000/- and on receipt of the same, the defendants 1 to 3 were directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of their 2/3^rd share in the suit property as per the sale agreement.

2.The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

The suit property belonged to Thirumalaisamy Gounder. He passed away intestate in the year 2009 leaving behind seven legal heirs (second defendant [wife], defendant 1 and 3 [sons] and four daughters). On 24.12.2009, vide document No.2243/2009, the daughters of Thirumalaisamy Gounder released their undivided 4/7^th share in favour of the other sharers. The share of defendants 1 and 3 enlarged to 2/3^rd undivided share in the suit property. The plaintiff is none other than the son-in-law of the second defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 agreed to convey their undivided share for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/-. The defendants 1 and 2 executed a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff's wife / Vijayalakshmi (D4) vide Document No.876/2013 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Chatrapatti. Based on the same, the suit sale agreement dated 27.05.2013 came to be registered as Document No. 1006/2013. Under the sale agreement, advance amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid and the balance amount of Rs.26,50,000/- was to be paid within a period of three years. The plaintiff came to know in December 2015 that documents have been created to his prejudice. The power of attorney executed in favour of the fourth defendant was cancelled. The defendants 1 and 2 relinquished their 2/3^rd share in favour of the third defendant / appellant herein. Power of Attorney was executed in favour of one Natachimuthu. Hence, the plaintiff issued the suit notice / Ex.A5 dated 17.12.2015 calling upon the defendants 1 and 2 to act in terms of the agreement. The defendants 1 and 2 declined to comply with the demand and issued reply notice / Ex.A7 dated 04.01.2016. Left with no other option, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance on 20.04.2016.

3.The first defendant filed written statement controverting the plaint averments. It was pleaded therein that the plaintiff, serving as Inspector of Police in SB-CID Wing of Tamil Nadu Police Department, could not have entered into the suit transaction without getting permission from the government. The market value of the suit property was Rs.2 Crores when the agreement was entered into. Since Thirumalaisamy Gounder had incurred huge debts on account of giving the four daughters in marriage, it was proposed to sell the share of defendants 1 and 2 and that it was for that purpose, power of attorney was executed in favour of the plaintiff's wife (fourth defendant) / one of the daughters of Thirumalaisamy Gounder. The understanding was that the power agent would obtain prior approval from the principal before fixing the sale price and identifying the purchaser. When the defendants 1 and 2 realized that the power agent had entered into a collusive transaction with her husband / plaintiff for selling their undivided share for a throwaway price, they cancelled the power of attorney itself.

4.The third defendant also filed written statement adopting the same defence. In addition, he ple