JANAKI Vs. S DESIGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.631 of 1992 who filed the Suit for specific performance with the alternative relief of return of the amount has filed the Appeal, challenging the judgment and the decree rendered by the Sub-Court, Trichirapalli granting a decree for the return of amount. He has also filed a Revision challenging the judgment and decree rendered in R.C.A.No.91 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli wherein an order of eviction has been passed on the ground of willful default with different user and Act of Waste.

(2.) IN view of the fact that both the cases are interconnected with each other and the respondent being the one and the same, the Appeal and the Revision can be taken up together for disposal.

(3.) THE case of the defendant in his written statement as well as the additional written statement is as follows: It is not true that the possession was handed over to the plaintiffs in pursuant to the sale agreement. THE first plaintiff's husband is in possession as a tenant of the suit property. THE rent payable is Rs.800/- per month and the first plaintiff's husband has not paid the same from 1986 onwards. THE plaintiffs seeking a equitable remedy of specific performance must come to the Court with clean hands. THE plaintiffs have filed the Suit on false allegations and therefore, they are not entitled for the relief. Even a perusal of the agreement dated 20.07.1989 would show that the husband of the first plaintiff Mr.A.Subramanian was made as a party. It is agreed between the parties that it is understood and accepted by the parties that the said A.Subramanian should pay the rents. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act could be used only as a shield but not as a sward. THE value of the property as on 20.07.1989 was more than Rs.5,50,000/-. THE building was in good condition. THE defendant was under pressure and also due to the conduct of the first plaintiff to execute the agreement. THE husband of the first plaintiff did not pay the rent from 01.12.1985 and the defendant was bad need in money to celebrate the marriage of his daughter and for the education of his son. Only under those circumstances, the defendant received the money from the plaintiff's Finance Company. In fact in order to celebrate the marriage of his daughter and to clear the debt, the defendant applies in the newspaper "THE HINDU" and thereafter, number of intending purchasers made offers. However, the first plaintiff and her husband did not allowed to inspect the suit property and threatened them that the first plaintiff husband is not vacated the property, if a third party buys the same. THErefore, on account of the pressure and tactics adopted by the plaintiffs and the husband of the first plaintiff, the defendant was made to surrender and forced to accept the terms by executing the agreement on 20.07.1989 for a very lesser amount. THE defendant was forced to do the same also in view of the fact that he was mostly in North India thus unable to take proper steps. This is also because of the fact that the first plaintiff husband has failed to pay the rent from 01.12.1989 to 31.10.1996 therefore the agreement gave a undue advantage to the plaintiffs over the defendant and therefore, the same is not valid under Section 20(2)(a) of the Specific Relief Act 1963. Further, the plaintiffs have put up construction without the concern of the defendant by changing the character of the suit property and causing damage to the same, the suit is lawful to be dismissed being barred by limitation and also for the non-joinder of necessary party since the first plaintiff husband A.Subramanian has not been made as a party. THE defendant is ready and willing to return a sum of Rs.2,82,500/- received by him and he has no objection to pass a decree to that effect against the defendant but without cost an interest. Hence, the suit filed was specific performance will have to be dismissed.