BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 02.04.2025 Pronounced on : 22.08.2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN S.A.No.1034 of 1988 --

1. S.Thiruvengadam (died)

2. Mrs.Rajivi Thiruvengadam

3. Jeyasri Prakash

4. Nithyashree Giridhar

5. Sue S Sreedhar

6. Nirupama Enamandra (Appellants 2 to 6 are brought on record as LRs. of the deceased sole appellant, vide Court order dated 19.07.2021 made in C.M.P.(MD).Nos.7931 of 2017 in S.A.No.1034 of 1988)

.. Appellants Vs.

S.Ravichandran .. Respondent Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.1988 in A.S.No.212 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Court, Madurai, against the judgment and decree dated 28.101986 in O.S.No.362 of 1983 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai.

For appellants : Mr.S.Ramesh For respondent : Mr.Anantha C.Rajesh JUDGMENT This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated

17.03.1988 in A.S.No.212 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Court, Madurai, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1986 in O.S.No.

362 of 1983 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. 2. The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.362 of 1983 are as follows: (a) The plaintiff proposed to purchase a site for the purpose of putting up a building and approached Mr. Ramachandran, a leading contractor in Madurai, and requested him to arrange for the purchase of a site in Chokkikulam area. Ramachandran was known to the defendant. The plaintiff was informed through Ramachandran that the defendant was the owner of T.S.Nos.2767/1 and 2767/2 in Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Chokkikulam, and that he was making arrangements for preparing a lay-out plan so that he could sell the plots. Ramachandran informed the plaintiff and asked whether he agreed to purchase a site at Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Chokkikulam. The plaintiff consented to the proposal. On behalf of the plaintiff, Ramachandran negotiated with the defendant. The price was fixed at Rs.2,250/- per cent, and an extent of 4,520 sq.ft. on the south-eastern corner abutting the old Nattam Road and a 30-ft. road was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. At that time, the defendant had prepared the lay-out but had not obtained approval from the concerned authorities. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the total extent of 4,520 sq.ft. Thereafter, the defendant informed Ramachandran that he would receive an advance of Rs. 1,000/- and execute the sale deed after the lay-out was approved by the concerned authorities. The plaintiff agreed to the same. He paid Rs.1,000/- to Ramachandran, who in turn paid the same to the defendant on 10.11.1979. The defendant issued a letter on that date to the plaintiff confirming the proposed sale of the property. As it was not known at that time when the lay-out would be approved, no time was fixed for performance in the letter given by the defendant. The defendant promised that he would arrange to have the lay-out approved, inform the plaintiff, and thereafter complete the sale. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

(b) The lay-out plan was subsequently approved by the authorities, but the defendant did not inform the plaintiff about the same. On 06.12.1982, the defendant sent a draft for Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff, along with a covering letter. The plaintiff opened the letter when he returned to Madurai. The contents of that letter were false. Evidently, the defendant wanted to resile from the contract of sale. The delay in completing the sale was only due to the defendant’s delay in obtaining approval for the lay-out. The plaintiff sent a reply through his lawyer on 18.01.1983, returned the demand draft, and expressed his readiness and willingness to complete the sale. The defendant sent a reply on 17.02.1983 after much deliberation, the contents of which were incorrect. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file