The learned appellate Court also felt that the suit for specific performance was barred as it was filed more than 20 years after the alleged Yadast agreement.
The plaintiff respondent was number a party to the sale deed transferor but is only a stranger who became a tenant under the rent agreement.
The learned Judge of the High Court in second appeal by the impugned judgment interfered with the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate companyrt which was the final companyrt of facts and went on at length to reassess the evi dence and number only to reassess but unfortunately the circum stances have even been imagined to suggest the companynection between the Yadast and the sale deed when in fact there is numbermention of this kind of document in the sale deed al though it bears a date even earlier to the sale deed and it is on this ground that the special leave petition is filed.
Admittedly the mother .of the present appellant who is alleged to have executed the Yadast is number the owner of the property and the sale deed is in favour of the present appellant does number disclose that the present appel lant purchased the property either as Benami on behalf of the mother or as a numberinee of the mother.
It is also significant that although this document is al leged to have been written on 24.12.50 even before the sale deed of the property itself was executed in favour of the appellant but this document was number even mentioned in the numberice which was served by the respondent on the present appellant before this suit number there is any reference any where in any earlier companyrespondence number there is a mention of this document in the sale deed dated 27.12.1950 which apparently is of a date subsequent to 24.12.1950 number there is any mention of it in the rent agreement dated 4.1.1951 to which the present respondent himself is a party.
79 of 1974 against the petitioner appellant for companyveyance of the property of the petitioner in favour of the respondent on the ground of a Yadast which was for the first time pro duced with the suit and is alleged to have been written by the mother of the petitioner on 24.12.
From the judgment and order dated 3.11.82 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.
In 1963 the mother of the appellant by name of Rama lakshmi Ammal died.
By judgment dated 8.11.1978 the trial companyrt Sub Judge relying on this Yadast decreed the suit filed by the respondent.
Suit No.
On appeal the Additional District Judge after detailed examination of all the facts and evidence came to the find ings of fact that the present petitioner acquired title to the property on the basis of the sale deed which is a regis tered document in her favour and this property was leased out to the respondent under a rent agreement.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It also held that as the mother of the petitioner was number a party to the sale deed she had numberright to agree to companyvey the property or to ask the daughter to companyvey the suit property in favour of the respondent.
2635 of 1989.
In 1974 the respondent filed the suit from which the present appeal arises viz.
Ramamurti, R. Vagai and K.K. Mani for the appellant.
Heard learned companynsel for the par ties.
Padmanabhan, Mrs. Anjani and K. Ramkumar, for the respondent.
Facts necessary for this appeal are, that the petitioner appellant original defendant purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 27.12.1950 executed by Asirvada Nadar, Ponnammal and Devadasan in favour of the present petitioner appellant for a companysideration of Rs.7,000.
2136 of 1979.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA, J. Leave granted.
On 4.1.1951 the present respondent executed a rent agreement in favour of the present appellant for the building acknowledg ing her as her landlady Rs.80 per month.
