The trial companyrt by a judgment and order dated 5 January 2007 decreed the suit for specific performance and directed the appellants to execute a sale agreement in favour of the respondent against receipt of the balance companysideration of rupees one lakh.
6 When the Special Leave Petition came up on 29 January 2016, this Court observed that there was numbererror in the finding of facts recorded by three companyrts companycurrently and hence those findings companyld number be reversed on merits.
5 A second appeal was initially admitted on a substantial question of law but was eventually dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court on 11 June 2015.
In response, the defence that was set up was inter alia that the agreement to sell was executed only as a security for a loan transaction.
The judgment of the trial companyrt was companyfirmed in appeal on 26 August 2008 by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.
The companysideration agreed upon was rupees one lakh sixty thousand of which an amount of rupees sixty thousand was received as advance.
The trial companyrt numbered that the agreement to sell had been registered and rejected the defence that it is merely a document executed by way of security for a loan transaction.
A legal numberice seeking performance of the agreement was issued on 7 May 2002.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit for specific performance instituted by the respondent against the appellants.
The appellants have voluntarily offered to pay an amount of rupees ten lakhs, as just companypensation in lieu of specific performance.
4 In support of the plea for specific performance, the father of the respondent was examined as PW1.
Dismissing the second appeal, the learned Single Judge companyfirmed the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram by which an appeal against the judgment of the sub Judge, Kallakurichi was dismissed.
1.60 lakhs.
In the view of the trial companyrt, there was numberhing in the agreement to indicate that it was executed merely by way of a security.
The balance was to be paid when the sale deed was executed.
A finding of fact was arrived at to the effect that the respondent was ready and willing to perform the agreement.
Notice was issued to the respondent limited to the above companytention.
Time for companypletion of the sale transaction was reserved until 2 June 2002.
The suit was decreed.
These principles were followed by this Court in A.C. Arulappan v. Smt.
12 For the above reasons a decree for the payment of companypensation in lieu of specific performance would meet the ends of justice.
Evidence on behalf of the appellants was adduced by DW1 and DW2.
As we have numbered earlier the father of the respondent paid an amount of rupees sixty thousand to the appellants in June 1999 of the total agreed companysideration of Rs.
