The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under The suit properties originally belonged to the family of the respondents.
55 of 1987 in the District Court South Arcot District at Cuddalore.
Therefore, the appellant instituted O.S. No.
According to the appellant, ever since the date of the execution of the sale deed and the date of its registration, he was ready to tender the balance of companysideration of Rs.15,000/ but the respondents were unreasonably refusing to receive the same and, therefore, he served a legal numberice calling upon them to hand over possession of the properties sold and pay mesne profits.
The Sub Registrar registered the document on October 26, 1983.
On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties the trial companyrt held that the appellant had failed to prove that he had paid a sum of Rs.25,000/ to the respondents on 21.7.1983.
Thereupon the respondents invoked jurisdiction of the High Court by way of filing second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The learned District Judge clarified that the appellant would be entitled to possession of the suit properties only after he deposited the said Rs.40,000/ and that the respondents will be entitled to draw the said amount from the companyrt.
55 of 1987, is set aside.
They denied having received Rs.25,000/ as advance.
The first respondent admitted execution of the deed but refused to put his thumb impression or to sign the endorsement to be made on the deed in token of admitting execution, on the ground that the respondents were number paid the remaining companysideration of Rs.40,000/ as stipulated in the deed.
Therefore, the High Court set aside the decree passed by the trial companyrt, as companyfirmed by the first appellant companyrt, and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant, by its judgment dated November 27, 2001 giving rise to the instant appeal by special leave.
On presentation of the document for registration, the Sub Registrar issued summons to the respondents pursuant to which the first respondent appeared before him.
It is the case of the appellant that before the document companyld be presented for registration, he paid to the respondents a sum of Rs.25,000/ on 21.7.1983 as they required that amount for purchasing a lorry, therefore, at the time of registration of the sale deed he was required to pay only the balance of Rs.15,000/ to the respondents.
Feeling aggrieved the respondents preferred Appeal No.
The High Court was of the view that the intention of the parties was that title would number pass to the appellant till the full companysideration was paid by him to the respondents and that title to the suit properties never passed to the appellant as he had number paid full companysideration to the respondents.
That finding was number challenged by the appellant before the High Court.
The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.
The balance of Rs.40,000/ was to be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed.
It is the case of the appellant that after receiving part of the companysideration, the respondents did number deliver possession of the properties to the appellant number paid mesne profits.
It is the case of the appellant that as the respondents had denied payment of Rs.25,000/ to them, he was left with numberother option but to present the document for registration before the Sub Registrar on 21.10.1983.
Necessary issues for determination were framed by the trial companyrt.
First respondent for himself and his minor sons and the second respondent sold the properties to the appellant for a companysideration of Rs.43,000/ by a deed dated June 26, 1983.
Out of the sale companysideration of Rs.43,000/ a sum of Rs.3,000/ was to be appropriated towards the discharge of the mortgage executed by the respondents in favour of the appellant.
In short the stand taken by the respondents was that as the appellant had number paid the balance companysideration of Rs.40,000/ as mentioned in the deed dated June 26, 1983, the title never passed to the appellant and , therefore, the suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and possession thereof was number maintainable.
144 of 1985 in the Court of learned District Munsiff of Villupuram seeking declaration of title to the suit properties.
Thus the learned District Judge partly allowed the appeal of the respondents by judgment and order dated December 15, 1988.
The appellant also prayed to direct the respondents to hand over possession and to pay past mesne profits of Rs.3,000/ and for an enquiry into future mesne profits.
The trial companyrt, however, held that the appellant had acquired title to the suit properties when the sale deed dated June 26, 1983 was duly registered and was entitled to declaration of his title as well as possession of the suit properties with mesne profits.
Therefore, the trial companyrt decreed the suit by judgment dated January 23, 1987.
On service of summons the respondents appeared and companytested the suit filed by the appellant.
1435 of 1990 by which the decree dated January 23, 1987, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Villupuram declaring the appellant to be owner of the disputed property and directing the respondents to hand over possession of the same to the appellant with mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2000/ per month with proportionate companyts, and affirmed subject to the modification that appellant will be entitled to possession only on deposit of Rs.40,000/ by the learned District Judge, South Arcot District at Cuddalore vide judgment dated December 15, 1988, rendered in Appeal No.
M. Panchal, J. The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated November 27, 2001, rendered by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No.
