Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. An oral agreement of sale was entered into on 26.01.2002 in the presence of respectable witnesses, including Dhan Natarajan, an Advocate, Tindivanam, who is said to be a close relative of the plaintiff as well as the defendant. The plaintiff would further aver that he has paid an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.1.2002 itself and the plaintiff was put in possession in part performance of the agreement . The time for performance was fixed as six months and if the plaintiff fails to perform his part of contract he would forfeit the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the event of failure on the part of the defendant, it was agreed that the plaintiff would seek performance through court.

5)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance?

6)To what other reliefs is plaintiff entitled to?

9. On the side of the plaintiff he examined himself as PW1 and PW2 was also examined. Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendant, he examined himself as DW1, Exs.B1 to B11 were marked.

10. Upon a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional District Judge,Tindivanam, relying upon the evidence of PW2, who is an advocate practicing at Tindivanam, came to the conclusion that the oral agreement is true and also held that the defendant received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Upon the said findings, the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit for specific performance on the basis of the oral agreement.

16. Even according to the plaintiff, he became a tenant under the defendant only in the year 1998, PW1 further deposed that the defendant had requested him to pay the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, when he visited Tindivanam on 26.1.2002. Therefore, according to the plaintiff on 26.1.2002, an oral agreement was entered into in his residence at Tindivanam and he paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance. In his cross-examination, PW1 would admit that the suit itself was filed only after receipt of notice in RCOP.No.5 of 2002 filed by the defendant seeking eviction.

25. It is not enough for the Court just to list the citations of the judgements relied upon by the respective counsels. The Court should apply its mind to the law laid down in the said judgements after referring to them and also state the reasons for either accepting or not accepting the ratio propounded in the precedents.

26. A perusal of the judgement of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Tindivanam would show that he was in fact influenced by the fact that PW2 was a lawyer practicing at Tindivanam and therefore, his evidence should be taken as a gospel truth. I am unable to agree with the said conclusion of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. Apart from the relationship, the manner in which PW2 has deposed and the fact that the present suit has been filed after initiation of eviction proceedings and service of summons in the said eviction proceedings, would cause serious dent on the claim of the plaintiff.