LAWS(MAD)-2007-5-14

BALAKRISHNAN Vs. RAJALAKSHMI

Decided On May 15, 2007
KUNJA ALIAS DHAKSHINAMURTHY Appellant
V/S
RAJALAKSHMI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants in O. S. No. 236 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Thiruvarur who has suffered a decree for specific performance has filed the above second appeal against the judgment and decree passed in A. S. No. 12 of 1992 on the file of the District Court, nagapattinam confirming the judgment and decree passed in o. S. No. 236 of 1990.

(2.) THE case of the respondent is that the first appellant agreed to sell the suit property to her for a sum of Rs. 3,240/- on 15. 06. 1990 and he has received an advance of Rs. 2,101/- from her. The terms of sale was reduced into writing and an agreement of sale was executed by the first appellant in favour of the respondent. The respondent through her husband requested the 1st appellant to execute the sale deed but the first appellant was evading, hence a legal notice was issued to the appellant and another brother paranjjothi. The first respondent alone sent a reply stating that there was a mediation after the sale agreement and in the mediation the respondent has agreed for the cancellation of the agreement. The case of the respondent is that she never agreed for the cancellation of the agreement. In order to defeat the rights of the respondent the first appellant has executed the sale deed in respect of the suit property to his brother the second appellant and according to the respondent the sale deed is not binding on her. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract but the first appellant has committed breach of agreement and therefore the respondent is entitled to a decree for specific performance.

(3.) THE first defendant contested the suit inter alia contending that without knowing the contents of the agreement of sale he has signed the same and though it is stated in the agreement as if an advance of Rs. 2,101/- has been received by the first appellant infact he has received an advance of Rs. 101/- only. It was further contended that there was a Panchayat and as per the decision of the panchayadhars the respondent agreed for the cancellation of the agreement but when the first appellant offered to refund the advance amount of Rs. 101/-, the respondent refused to receive the same and did not return the original copy of the agreement as per the undertaking given before the panchayadhars and hence the respondent has filed the suit for specific performance. It was also contended by the first appellant that he is an illiterate person and knows only to sign and the agreement was false and fraudulent.