K R MANICKAM Vs. P KUMARAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff, in getting a decree for specific performance of the agreement, has filed the above appeal.

(2.) The first defendant is the owner of the suit property and he negotiated a sale agreement with the plaintiff and they entered into an agreement of sale on 1.9.1979, with respect to the suit property. The plaintiff has been in possession as a lessee of the same. The sale consideration agreed between the parties was Rs. 49,000/- and the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 4,501/- to the first defendant on 1.9.1979. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the plaintiff has to settle and discharge the loan amount on behalf of the 1st defendant, payable to M/s. Sudarsan Chits (India) Limited. The 1st defendant has to execute a sale deed after receiving .the sale price within a month in favour of the plaintiff at his expenses. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation and requested the 1st defendant to accompany him to M/s. Sudarsan Chit Company for the purpose of settling and discharging the loan transaction mentioned in the sale agreement, the 1st defendant was evading with an ulterior motive. So, the plaintiff caused a notice to the 1st defendant on 28.9.1979 asking him to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff himself went to M/s. Sudarsan Chits (India) Limited and after due verification he was able to find out that the 1st defendant owed a sum of Rs. 25,000. He offered a sum of Rs. 22.500/- in full and final settlement of the loan amount and it was accepted by the Manager of the said Company and he passed on a receipt dated 26.11.1980. After the discharge of the loan amount, the Manager of the said Company returned all the original documents to the plaintiff, which the 1st defendant had offered to them as collateral security. The plaintiff, thus, has paid a total sum of Rs. 27.051/- towards the sale consideration. According to the plaintiff, immediately after discharge of the said loan transaction, the plaintiff alongwith one Rajangam approached the 1st defendant and intimated the same to him and requested him to execute the sale deed after receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 21,949/-. Though the 1st defendant agreed to receive the balance amount and promised to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after verifying the discharge of the loan transaction, he was evading and dodging to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed. Thereafter also the plaintiff caused a legal notice to the 1st defendant. To his surprise the plaintiff received a legal notice from the defendants on 9.2.1981 stating that the 2nd defendant had purchased the suit property on 7.1.1981 and so he is entitled to collect the monthly rent from January, 1981, from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has-specifically stated that the 2nd defendant, with full knowledge about the sale transaction entered into between the plaintiff and 1st defendant, had obtained the sale deed fraudulently. So the plaintiff has filed the above suit for enforcing the agreement dated 1.9.1979.

(3.) The 2nd defendant filed a written statement denying the genuineness of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and also the passing of the consideration towards the said agreement. According to him, the plaintiff sent the notices long after the sale in favour of the 2nd defendant and after knowing about the sale in favour ofthe 2nd defendant. He has specifically stated that the 2nd defendant did not know about the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is the bona fide purchaser for value. He denied the fact that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in pursuance of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff.