K BALARAMAN Vs. PATTAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 1, 3, 5 to 10 in O. S. No. 874 of 1988 before the District Munsif Court, thiruvallur are the appellants in the second appeal. The said suit was filed by respondents herein for specific performance of the agreement dated 20. 08. 1980 and for permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit and on appeal, the first appellate court confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court, hence, the present second appeal has been filed.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint are as follows: -The first defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property, entered into an agreement, Ex. A1 dated 20. 08. 1980 with the first plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs. 9,060/- and on that day entire amount was paid. In and by the said agreement, Ex. A1, the first defendant agreed to execute the sale deed forthwith on request made by the first plaintiff and there is no time stipulated for performance of the contract. It is also stated that after execution of Ex. A1, the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit property and they were paying kist to the revenue authorities till 1988. During 1988, the first plaintiff requested the first defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour; that the first defendant told the first plaintiff to prepare the sale deed and wait at the Sub-registrar Office, Perambakkam on 09. 08. 1988, accordingly, the first plaintiff purchased stamp papers to the value of Rs. 2,542/-, prepared sale deed and went to the Sub-registrar Office, Perambakkam and waited there till 5. 00 p. m. but the first defendant did not turn up; that the plaintiffs went to the residence of the first defendant and requested him to sign the sale deed and register it, but the first defendant evaded. Thereafter, a panchayat was convened in the presence Munusamy, PW2; Jayarama Reddy, PW3 and Murugesan, PW4, but the first defendant refused to execute the sale deed, hence, the first plaintiff sent a legal notice, Ex. A6 dated 22. 09. 1988 calling upon the first defendant to execute the sale deed, for which the first defendant sent a reply notice, Ex. A7 dated 01. 10. 1988 thereby refused to execute the sale deed on false reasons. On 06. 12. 1988, the defendants attempted to cut and carry away the velikathan trees standing in the suit property, which was prevented by the plaintiffs, hence, the suit was filed.