The High Court answered first three points against the Plaintiff and held that the Plaintiff was number entitled to the relief of specific performance.
The first plaintiff was also ready to deposit sale companysideration, if so directed by the companyrt.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are number entitled for the relief prayed for.
The 4 th defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.582 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore for specific performance of his agreement of sale dated 27.3.1979 and the defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance in that suit and under the agreement of sale dated 27.3.1979, an advance of Rs.60,000/ was paid by the fourth defendant and the sale companysideration was fixed at Rs.1,75,000/ and possession was handed over to the 4 th defendant in part performance of the agreement of sale and therefore, the 4th defendant is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
A.39 equivalent to Ex.
The first plaintiff died and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 were impleaded as legal representatives and they were also entitled for specific performance and injunction in respect of item 2 of the property.
707 of 1981 with original Plaintiff Ponnuswamy Nadar.
Whether the agreement Ex.
During the pendency of the suit the defendants 9 to 12 having full knowledge of the pending litigation entered into a joint venture by companyluding with the defendants 1 to 8 and the defendants 9 to 12 claimed to have purchased the suit property from the defendants 3 to 8.
As the defendants 1 and 2 did number companye forward to receive the balance sale companysideration and execute the sale deed, the 4th defendant sent a numberice dated 11.6.1981 by registered post calling upon the defendants 1 and 2 to receive the balance sale companysideration and execute the sale deed.
The defendants 3 and 5 are bona fide purchasers for value and therefore, they are entitled to get protection and they have numberknowledge of the agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980.
The High Court, by its judgment and order, presently under Appeal, allowed both the Appeal Suit Nos.
The defendants 1 to 3 filed a statement stating that the first plaintiff was a real estate dealer and a speculator and he was a neighbour of the defendants and he was aware of the agreement between the defendants 1 to 5 entered into with the 6 th defendant on 27.3.1979.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are number Civil Appeal Nosof 2019 SLP C Nos.23648 23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.
the defendants 1 and 2.
On 7.11.1980, the defendants 1 and 2 namely, Kuppathal and Nanjammal requested the first plaintiff to extend time for companypleting the sale on the ground that there were standing crops on the field and that was agreed on companydition of delivering a portion of the suit property and accordingly, the second item of the suit property was delivered to the first plaintiff on 7.11.1980 and time was extended by 10 months and that was also endorsed in the agreement of sale attested by witnesses.
The first plaintiff also filed a criminal companyplaint against the defendants 1 to 3 for the offence of cheating and the defendants 1 to 3 were companyvicted by the trial companyrt and the companyviction was set aside in the appeal and in the criminal proceedings, the defendants 1 to 3 questioned the genuineness of the agreement dated 7.11.1980.
The plaintiff is a very close family friend of the defendants 1 and 2 and all of them companyluded and created the agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980 to cause loss to the defendants 3 to 5.
The defendants 1 to 5 are closely related to the defendants Civil Appeal Nosof 2019 SLP C Nos.23648 23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.
A.6 was executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No.707 of 1981 as alleged by the plaintiffs?
B.19 was a genuine document as alleged by the appellants?
entitled to the relief of specific performance.
It is further stated that pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 27.3.1979 between the defendants 1 to 5 and the 6 th defendant, two sale deeds dated 22.10.1981 and exchange deeds dated 19.10.1981 and 22.10.1981 were executed.
Both the suits were tried together and the Trial Court by its judgement and order dated 25.03.1987 found that the agreement of sale dated 16.07.1980 Exhibit A5 entered into between the original Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 and 2 in S.No.704 of 1981 and so also the agreement of sale dated 16.07.1980 Exhibit A6 entered into between the original Plaintiff and the Defendants Civil Appeal Nosof 2019 SLP C Nos.23648 23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.
The defendants 1 to 5 were demanding Rs.20,000/ over and above the agreed price in the agreement of sale dated 27.3.1979 and at the intervention of panchayatdars, they received Rs.10,000/ and executed document in favour of the defendants 6 and It is also companytended that the suit filed by the first plaintiff is a companylusive suit and the first plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 are closely related and in order to defeat the rights of the defendants 6 and 7, the present suit was filed.
The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement companytending that Ponnuswamy Nadar was a real estate dealer and speculator and he was a neighbour to the defendants and he was also aware of the agreement of sale the defendants 1 and 2 had entered into with the 4th defendant on 27.3.1979.
The sale deed was alleged to have been executed in favour of the defendants 9 to 12 and numberinal document was created with an intention of giving companyour to their fictitious and fraudulent transfer and numberconsideration was paid towards sale deed and the sale in favour of defendants 9 to 12 was also hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
The agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980 was also number genuine and the endorsements made on the agreement were also forged and created for the purpose of his case and numberpart of the property was given to the first plaintiff on 7.11.1980 and the plaintiffs were number having means to pay the balance sale companysideration as per the agreement of sale and therefore, the suit is liable to the dismissed.
The Defendants in the above mentioned O.S.Nos.704 and 707 of 1981 being aggrieved filed Appeal Suit Nos.646 and 647 of 1987 in the High Court.
Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract as per Exs.
The 4 th defendant also issued a paper publication in Malai Malar dated 11.11.1981 informing the public about the sale deed in favour of the defendants 3 5.
A.7 and A.8 were executed by the said defendants for extension of time and they also parted with possession of a portion of the suit property as stated in Exs.
On the basis of the submissions advanced by the Counsel, the following points were framed for companysideration Whether Ex.
B.19 was executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.704 of 1981 and the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No.707 of 1981 in favour of the fourth defendant in respect of the entire suit properties in both the suits?
Thereafter, the first plaintiff created agreement of sale to defeat the right of the defendants 1 to 3.
An advance of Rs.5,000/ was paid and on 7.11.1980, the defendants 1 to 5 requested the first plaintiff to extend the time by 10 months on the ground that there were standing crops and that was agreed, and 25 cents of the property was delivered to the first plaintiff on 7.11.1980 and that property has been shown as item No.2.
The plaintiffs are number in possession of any portion of the suit property and there was numbernecessity to ask for extension of time to deliver possession and there was numberagreement of sale between the first plaintiff and Civil Appeal Nosof 2019 SLP C Nos.23648 23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.
Again, on 27.8.1981, the defendants 1 to 5 sought for further extension of time for 3 months and that was also agreed and both were endorsed in the agreement of sale.
alleged agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980 was created in favour of the first plaintiff.
The defendants 2 to 5 attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the second item of the property.
As regards the respective companytentions of the parties raised in the plaint and the written statement in O.S.No.707 of 1981, the relevant paras in the judgment of the High Court were as under The plaint allegation in O.S. No.707 of 1981 is almost identical with the plaint allegations in S.No.704 of 1981 and in that suit, agreement of sale was entered into by the defendants 1 to 5 with the first plaintiff on 16.7.1980 and the companysideration was fixed at Rs.1,19,500/ and 4 months time was fixed for companypleting the sale transaction.
704 of 1981 and O.S. No.
It is also stated that the agreement of sale in favour of the 4th defendant was earlier in point of time and the sale deed was executed after the Civil Appeal Nosof 2019 SLP C Nos.23648 23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.
He questioned the truth, validity and genuineness of the agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980 alleged to have been entered into between the first plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 for the sale companysideration of Rs.1,19,500/ and also the endorsement made on the agreement of sale and parting of possession of second item of property.
A.7 and A.8?
Meanwhile, the first plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1and 2 fraudulently transferred the suit property in favour of the defendant Nos.
A.5 and A.6?
646 and 647 of 1987.
646 and 647 of 1987.
Therefore, the suit was filed for relief of specific performance.
The Appeal Suit Nos.646 and 647 of 1987 arose out of Civil Suits being, O.S. No.
3 and 5, namely, Perumal, and R. Vijayalakshmi, in companylusion with the first appellant herein.
The 6th defendant in O.S.No.707 of 1981 filed a written statement and the same was adopted by 7th defendant and the 4th defendant in O.S.No.704 of 1981 is the 6th defendant in O.S.No.707 of 1981 and he repeated the same allegations in the statement filed in O.S.No.704 of 1981 in the present suit.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are number entitled to the relief of specific performance.
A.9 and A.10 were executed by the aforesaid defendants seeking extension of time?
The defendants 8 to 11 claimed to have purchased the suit properties from the defendants 6 and 7 and those sale deeds in favour of the defendants 8 to 11 are numberinal documents and they have number companye into force and there was numberpassing of companysideration and as the properties were alleged to have been companyveyed to the defendants 8 to 11, they were also made as parties.
The agreement was number for the benefit of the minors.
Whether the defendants 4 to 12 in O.S.No.704 of 1981 and the defendants 6 to 11 in O.S.No.707 of 1981 are bona fine purchasers for value?
Thereafter, the first plaintiff created the sale agreement in his favour as if the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to him and therefore, the agreement dated 16.7.1980 projected by the first plaintiff for filing the suit for specific performance was number a genuine document and the defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement of sale with the 4th defendant on 27.3.1979 which was earlier in point of time and therefore, the first plaintiff cannot claim any right even under the agreement of sale.
Therefore, the defendants 1 and 2 are number liable to execute any sale deed and the plaintiffs are number entitled to the relief of specific performance.
6 and 7 and, in order to defraud the first plaintiff and to defeat the legitimate right of the first plaintiff, the sale deeds were executed in favour of the defendants 6 and 7.
granted for a period of 3 months and that was also endorsed in the agreement of sale.
The first plaintiff Ponnuswamy Nadar died on 22.6.1989, leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his legal heirs and therefore, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are entitled to get the relief of specific performance.
On the date of agreement, an advance of Rs.5,000/ was paid.
A.5 was executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.704 of 1981 and Ex.
The defendants 1 and 2 are closely related to the defendants 4 and With the intention of defrauding the first plaintiff and to defeat his legitimate rights, a fraudulent sale deed was executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 and 5.
The 4th defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit filed by the plaintiff is vexatious, false and liable to be dismissed.
They also denied the allegation that on 7.11.1980 possession of 25 cents of property was given to the first plaintiff and questioned the means of the first plaintiff to pay the balance sale companysideration.
The second item of property which is forming part of the first item of property was delivered in part performance of the companytract on 7.11.1980 to the first plaintiff S.N. Ponnuswamy Nadar.
During the pendency of said Suits, the original Plaintiff expired and his heirs were substituted in his place.
The first plaintiff also filed a criminal case against the defendants 1 and 2 for cheating and the defendants were companyvicted by the trial companyrt and later acquitted in the appeal.
Whether Exs.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Leave granted.
The defendants 6 and 7 in companylusion with the defendants 1 to 5 created sale deed in their favour.
Whether Exs.
These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit Nos.
A.39 equivalent to Ex.
No permission was obtained from the Court for entering into an agreement of sale.
16.07.1980 Exhibit A6 respectively.
On 6.11.1981, a registered letter was sent by the first plaintiff to the defendants 1 and 2 expressing his readiness to purchase the suit property and demanded the execution of the sale deed by defendants 1 and 2 and that was followed by lawyers numberice on 16.11.1981.
Even in the criminal proceedings, genuineness of the agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980 was challenged by the defendants 1 and 2.
As per Exhibit A5 the original Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.704 of 1981 entered into an agreement of sale with original Plaintiff Ponnuswamy Nadar, while Exhibit A6 was entered into between original Defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No.
After entering appearance in the suit O.S.No.582 of 1981, the defendants 1 and 2 demanded Rs.20,000/ more and after negotiation, the 4th defendant agreed to pay Rs.10,000/ and thereafter, two sale deeds were executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 and 5 as per the direction of the 4 th defendant and thereafter, the first plaintiff in companylusion with the defendants 1 and 2 filed the suit to defeat the rights of the defendants 3 to 5.
The first plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale companysideration and the first plaintiff was having sufficient means for purchasing of stamp paper and other expenses for the due execution of the sale deed and the first plaintiff was willing to deposit the balance sale companysideration into the Court.
707 of 1981 on the file of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.08.13 Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu seeking specific 170340 IST Reason performance in respect of agreements dated 16.07.1980 Exhibit A5 and Civil Appeal Nosof 2019 SLP C Nos.23648 23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.
Whether Ex.
Thereafter, the defendants 1 to 5 sold the property to the defendants 6 and 7 and the defendants 1 to 5 have numberright to sell the property after having entered into an agreement of sale with the first plaintiff on 16.7.1980 and the sale deed in favour of the defendants 6 and 7 are also number binding on the first plaintiff.
Sale companysideration was agreed at Rs.1,19,500/ and it was agreed that the sale would be companypleted within a period of 4 months from the date of agreement.
parties to the suit.
The Trial Court, thus, decreed both the Suits and granted decree for specific performance as prayed for.
It is stated that the defendants 6 and 5 are minors on that date and, therefore, they are number bound by the agreement of sale.
In that suit, I.A.No.794 of 1981 was filed for injunction and that was also granted and that would also prove that the 4th defendant was in possession of the suit property.
Civil Appeal Nosof 2019 SLP C Nos.23648 23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.
Civil Appeal Nosof 2019 SLP C Nos.23648 23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.
The rival submissions of the parties including the case of the Plaintiffs in O.S. No.704 of 1981 was set out by the High Court in para number.2 to 4 of its judgment as under The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.704 of 1981 is as follows Late S.N. Ponnuswamy Nadar entered into an agreement of sale with Kuppathal and Nanjammal, defendants 1 and 2, on 16.7.1980 for the purchase of the suit property and in that suit, the defendants 6 to 8, were later impleaded.
Therefore, the defendants 9 to 12 were added as Civil Appeal Nosof 2019 SLP C Nos.23648 23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.
The first plaintiff was ready and wiling to purchase the suit property but the defendants 1 to 5 were number ready and therefore, numberice dated 16.11.1980 was issued by the first plaintiff to the defendants 1 to 7 demanding execution of sale deed.
The Court Guardians of the defendants 4 and 5 filed a statement denying the agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980.
1 to 5 in O.S.No.707 of 1981 were genuine agreements of sale that time to companyplete the transaction was extended on 07.11.1980 and the endorsements in that behalf were also genuine endorsements, while agreement of sale dated 27.03.1979 Exhibit B19 was a got up document which was ante dated.
As there was numberresponse to the numberice, the fourth defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.582 of 1981 for specific performance.
Again on 27.8.1981, further extension of time was Civil Appeal Nosof 2019 SLP C Nos.23648 23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.
Having ruled against the Exhibits A5 and A6, the High Court went on to companysider whether relief for specific performance companyld be granted in favour of the Plaintiff even assuming said Exhibits A5 and A6 to be valid documents.
