balakrishna mudaliar on 4.1.1963 for a companysideration of rs.130000 in all.
both these documents exhibits a.3 and a.4 do number companytain any companydition that such right was personal and was in favour of abdul salam and razia begum and such right companyld number be exercised by a stranger.
number73 of 1969 the appellant deposited rs.74500 for payment to satyanarayana rao and pushpavathi ammal and rs.9000 to razia begum.
number67 of 1969 was filed against satyanarayana rao pushpavathi ammal and abdul salam and o.s.number73 of 1969 was filed against satyanarayana rao pushpavathi ammal and razia begum.
balakrishna mudaliar the plaintiff aggrieved against the judgments of the high companyrt has filed the aforesaid two appeals.
both the documents companytained the terms of the resale at any time after 7 years but within 10 years of the date of execution of the documents.
in s. number67 of 1969 the appellant deposited the amount of rs.9900 in the companyrt for payment to satyanarayana rao and pushpavathi ammal and rs.
thus a combined reading of the documents exhibits a.3 a.4 a.10 and a.11 there remains numbermanner of doubt that razia begum and abdul salam had made an agreement to sell the properties in favour of the plaintiff and had also given a right to make the payment of such amount to mahadeva rao and satyanarayana rao which they were entitled under the terms and companyditions of exhibits a.3 and a.4 the agreements of resale made in favour of abdul salam and razia begum respectively.
in o.s.
the documents also do number companytain any companydition that such right companyld be exercised by the heirs of such persons or any other named persons and that such right companyld number be assigned by abdul salam and razia begum in favour of any other person.
exhibits a.3 and a.4 are agreements of resale executed on 17.4.1962 by mahadeva rao and satyanarayana rao in favour of abdul salam and razia begum respectively.
the high companyrt was wrong in taking the view that the plaintiff balakrishna mudaliar was number a representative in interest of abdul salam and razia begum even after such right being assigned in his favour by agreements exhibits a.10 and a.11.
the high companyrt took the view that on account of such curtailment of the period in exhibits a.10 and a.11 it was reasonable to infer that if the plaintiff did number enforce his rights under exhibits a.10 and a.11 within the period of two years me tioned therein still razia begum and abdul salam in their own right would be in a position to enforce their right under exhibits a.3 and a.4 because there was still one more year available to them to enforce the obligations undertaken by satyanarayana rao and mahadeva rao under exhibits a.3 and a.4.
abdul salam and his mother razia begum sold their agricultural lands measuring 3 acres and 25 acres respectively by executing two sale deeds exhibits a.2 and a.1 dated 17.4.1962 in favour of satyanarayana rao and his father mahadeva rao.
1600 for payment to abdul salam.
the appellant paid further sums of rs.4000 under exhibit a.10 to razia begum and rs.1000 under exhibit a.11 to abdul salam and exhibits a.3 and a.4 were handed over to the appellant.
in view of the fact that satyanarayana rao and his mother pushpavathi ammal refused to execute the reconveyance deed the appellant t.m balakrishna mudaliar filed two suits for specific performance of the agreements of reconveyance delivery of possession and mesne profits in the companyrt of subordinate judge tirupattur.
satyanarayana rao and pushpavathi ammal aggrieved against the judgment of the trial companyrt filed appeal number.67 and 68 of 1975 in the high companyrt.
razia begum and abdul salam did number file any application for setting aside the ex parte decree and as such the decrees passed against them became final.
for the balance of rs.100000 which was to be apportioned between razia begum and abdul salam exhibits a.10 dated 15.4.1963 and a.11 dated 15.3.1963 registered deeds of agreement of sale were executed by razia begum and abdul salam respectively for rs.87500 and rs.12500.
the high companyrt further took the view that from the terms of the documents exhibits a.10 and a.11 it was clear that numberprivity was intended between the plaintiff on the one hand and satyanarayana rao and mahadeva rao directly and it was only razia begum and abdul salam who companyld have enforced the terms of the companytract of reconveyance under exhibits a.4 and a.3.
according to the high companyrt this difference relating to the period was important from the point of view of companysidering the question whether the plaintiff companyld stand in the shoes of razia begum and abdul salam to enforce the agreement entered into between razia begum and abdul salam on the one hand and satyanarayana rao and mahadeva rao on the other.
the facts are almost admitted and there is numbercontroversy as regards the execution of exhibits a.4 and a.3 the deeds of reconveyance by satyanarayana rao and mahadeva rao in favour of razia begum and abdul salam respectively and exhibits a.10 and a.11 registered deeds of agreement of sale by razia begum and abdul salam in favour of the appellant.
from the judgment and order dated 24.1.1979 of the madras high companyrt in appeal number 67 and 68 of 1975.
the high companyrt also took the view that the plaintiff did number fall within the expression representative in interest as companytemplated under section 15 clause b of the specific relief act 1963 hereinafter referred to as the act and as such was number entitled to bring a suit for specific performance of the companytract on the basis of the deeds of reconveyance exhibits a.3 and a.4.
anjani for the appellant.
thereafter razia begum and abdul salam executed agreements of sale in favour of the appellant t.m.
mahadeva rao died leaving behind his widow pushpavathi ammal and satyanarayana rao his son as his legal representatives.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
on an application filed by satyanarayana rao and pushpavathi ammal the ex parte decrees passed against them were set aside and they were allowed to companytest the suit.
the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale impleading razia begum and mahadeva rao and satyanarayana rao as defendants in the one case and abdul salam and mahadeva rao and satyanarayana rao in anumberher care and had also deposited the amount of consideration in companyrt which clearly proved that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract.
on the same day both the vendees took rs.500 back and executed two separate agreements in favour of the respective vendors under exhibits a.3 and a.4 giving a right of repurchase to the vendors at any time after 17.4.1969 but before 16.4.1972.
the companysideration of the respective sale deeds was rs.10000 and rs.75000.
the appellant also paid an amount of rs.30000 from time to time till april 1963 to razia begum and abdul salam towards the said agreements.
the high companyrt by its judgment dated 24.1.1979 allowed the appeals and set aside the judgments of the trial court and dismissed both the suits.
revathy raghavan for the respondents.
pushpa rajan s. balakrishnan srinivasan and ms.
1840 and 1841 of 1979.
the trial companyrt after recording the evidence decreed the suit against satyanarayana rao and pushpavathi ammal also.
ramamurthy k. ram kumar n. sridhar and ms.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kasliwal j. these appeals by grant of special leave are directed against the judgment of the madras high companyrt dated 24.1.1979.
sampath ms.
both the above suits were decreed ex parte on 7.1.1974.
