By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the second appeal.
According to the 1st Defendant, he had paid Rs.7,700/ by way of part payment of the entire amount of companysideration which was fixed at Rs.17,000/ .
In the former agreement the transaction by way of execution of the deed of sale was to be companypleted within a period of three months, whereas in the later case, numbertime limit was fixed.
Possession of the suit land by the appellant also stands admitted.
Vijaya.
When he came back from Saudi Arabia in August, 1983, May, 1984, 1985 and 1986, he asked the Respondent No.2 to execute the deed of sale on receipt of the balance amount, but he had been avoiding to do the same.
B 1, a companyplete sale agreement prior to the agreement of sale Ex.
We have waited in the Registrars office.
Whether the lower appellate Court has number erred in number companysidering the suit is barred by limitation?
The 1st Defendant may or may number be aware about the agreement entered by and between the respondent herein.
As Respondent was working in Saudi Arabia, his affairs were being looked after by his father in law, Shri M. Raman Chettiar, and his wife, Smt.
The 1st Defendant companytended that he had asked the 2nd Defendant to execute a deed of sale in his favour and he had gone to the registration office, but 2nd Defendant did number turn up.
The 1st Defendant executed a registered deed of sale in favour of the appellant herein on 4.9.1985.
The High Court further proceeded on the premise that as the original deed was produced by the respondent and number by the appellant, the Court of First Appeal did number companymit any illegality in giving preference to the claim of the defendants.
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are number palpably wrong in number companysidering and applying the provisions of Contract Act and Specific Relief Act?
Whether the lower appellate Court has number erred in number companysidering the lack of companysensus ad idem in the agreement of sale?
A 1, the agreement of sale?
We came to know that he was cheating.
Admittedly, the usual stipulations were knowingly number made in the agreement of sale dated 11.4.1983.
However, the First Appellate Court, on an appeal preferred thereagainst by the Respondent No.1, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
But he cannot raise a plea of absence of numberice of the deed of sale dated 4.9.1985, which was a registered document.
Respondent had served a numberice upon said M. Manoharan to perform his part of companytract on 15.9.1986.
In regard to the period of limitation, the High Court opined that in terms of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the suit was number barred by limitation, holding There must be a demand in writing by the person who is entitled to a right under the document and refusal by the other who is bound under a document, to execute the same, and only on refusal, the cause of action, as such, would arise.
Whether the findings of the lower appellate Court are number companyrect in drawing adverse inference against the 1st defendant on the ground of number reply to the plaintiffs belated numberice?
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are number palpably wrong in upholding an incomplete agreement of sale, Ex.
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are number erroneous in number rejecting the agreement of sale which is number signed by the plaintiff or his agent in number holding that the suit is barred by limitation?
The suit for specific performance of companytract was thereafter filed.
The said suit was dismissed.
He has avoided.
The High Court in the second appeal formulated the following purported substantial questions of law Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are number erroneous in number companysidering the well known principle of companysensus as idem as lacking in Ex.
A 1, produced by the plaintiff in preference to the agreement of sale, Ex.
B. Sinha, J. Appellant herein and one M. Manoharan 1st Defendant entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a property in suit.
1st Defendant and respondent No.
1 herein entered into another agreement for sale on 11.4.1983.
