3. Complaints 646 and 647 of 1987 are due to civil actions, O.S. No. 704 of 1981 and O.S. No. 707 of 1981 on the acts of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, in order to aim for a particular performance with regard to the agreements concluded on 16.07.1980 (exhibition-A5) and 16.07.1980 (exhibition-A6). Under the original defendant 1 and 2 of O.S. 704 of 1981, Exhibit-A5 entered into a sale agreement with the original applicant, Ponnuswamy Nadar, while Exhibit-A6 was entered into between the original defendants 1 to 5 at O.S. 707 of 1981 with the original applicant, Ponnuswamy Nadar. The parties` competing statements, including O.S. No. 704 of 1981, were presented by the High Court in Den No. 2 to 4 of its judgment:- Recalling the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found that a sale agreement had been reached on June 2, 1999 between the complainants and the respondent`s father.
The thought agreed between the parties was rupees One lakh and sixty thousand, of which a quantity of rupees was paid to sell sixty thousand at the time of the implementation of the agreement. The sale is expected to close within three years with payment of Rupien One Lakh`s balance. On May 7, 2002, the respondent issued a legal reference to the implementation of the sale agreement. In response to the legal note, the complainant`s defence was, among other things, that the sale agreement had been executed only as collateral for a loan transaction, since the complainant`s father was a lender (which is a recognized fact). The Supreme Court found that there was no error in the finding of the facts by the three courts and that, therefore, the judgment on the merits could not be set aside. The applicant, however, drew the attention of the Supreme Court to another argument that the property is the only property that retains the complainant`s property and has an extremely high value. The complainant also stated that they were willing to pay a sum of Ten Lakhs rupees, or more, to retain ownership of the complaint. In its decision, the Supreme Court considered this limited question/alternative argument.