RASAMMAL Vs. PAULINE EDWIN
LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-604
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on July 22,2010

RASAMMAL (DIED) Appellant
VERSUS
PAULINE EDWIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M. VENUGOPAL, J. - (1.) THE appellant/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2000 made in O.S. No. 183 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Salem.
(2.) THE trial Court, in its judgment in O.S. No. 183 of 1995 dated 22.12.2000, has, among other things, observed that the plaintiffs have no right to claim the reliefs of specific performance and permanent injunction and dismissed the suit without costs but directed the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ - received as advance to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of Judgment and in case of default, the plaintiffs are directed to pay 6% interest per anuum from the date of Decree till date of payment. The trial Court has framed in all 6 issues for consideration. On behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs, witnesses P.W.I and P.W.2 have been examined and Exhibits A -1 to A -10 have been marked. On the side of the respondents/defendants, D.W.I to D.W.3 have been examined and Exhibits B -1 to B -140 have been marked. Also, Exhibit C -1 -Advocate Commissioner's Report and Exhibit C -2 -Plan have been marked. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. No. 183 of 1995 dated 22.12.2000, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal before this Court.
(3.) THE point that arise for determination in this appeal is: "Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to claim the relief of specific performance on the basis of Exhibit A -1 -Agreement dated 15.4.1992 - Contentions, Discussions and Findings: According to the learned senior counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the proper steps in sending notice to the 2nd respondent and the same has been received and marked as Exhibits A -9 and A -10 respectively and in fact, the 1st respondent/1 st defendant has executed an illegal sale in favour of the 2nd respondent and that the sale deed has been presented only on 24.2.1995 before the Sub Registrar, Salem and that too after filing of the suit before the trial Court on 1.3.1995 praying for the relief of specific performance.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.