C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of two suits which were disposed of by a common judgment by the lower Court. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as per their array in OS No. 69 of 1989.

( 2 ) THE subject matter of both the suits is a vacant site measuring 91 sq. yards. OS No. 69 of 1989 is a suit for specific performance of the oral agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into by defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 6 with the plaintiff on 14-1-1989 agreeing to sell the suit site to the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The 7th defendant is the subsequent purchaser of the suit site along with the shed existing therein under two registered sale-deeds dated 1-2-1989 and 1-6-1989 marked as Exs. B1 and B2 respectively. Ex. B1 was executed by defendants 4 and 5 covering half share in the suit site whereas Ex. B2 executed by defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 10 covering the other half and the shed. The suit OS No. 69 of 1989 was initially filed against the defendants 1 to 7 only on 7-6-1989. Subsequently defendants 8 to 10 were impleaded as parties as per the order dated 30-9-1991 passed in IA No. 1097 of 1991. OS No. 87 of 91 is filed by the 7th defendant against the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit property and for damages for use and occupation. Both the suits were tried jointly. The lower Court decreed OS No. 69 of 89 with costs as prayed for and dismissed OS No. 87 of 1991 without costs. Hence these two appeals. AS No. 2764 of 92 is against OS No. 69 of 1989 whereas Trans Appeal AS No. 277 of 95 is against OS No. 87 of 1991.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts of the case arc that the suit property originally belonged to one Abdul Jaleel who leased it out to the plaintiff under a lease agreement dated 29-5-1984 (Ex. A 60) fora period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. 00. The plaintiff was thus in occupation of the suit property as a tenant. Abdul Jaleel died on 26-8-1988. Even during his life time, Abdul Jaleel conveyed the suit property to his four sons i. e. , defendants 4 to 6 and the father of defendants 1 to 3 under a registered sale deed dated 17-8-1987 (Ex. A63 ). It, is however, stated by the plaintiff that he had no knowledge of the same and that Abdul Jaleel continued to collect the rents till his death.

( 4 ) IT is the specific case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, that there was no oral agreement between him and defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 6 on 14-1-1989 whereby defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 6 agreed to sell the suit site to him at the rate of Rs. 800. 00 per sq yard, that a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 was paid by the plaintiff as advance to the 5th defendant at the time of the agreement, that the balance of sale consideration as per actual measurements was agreed to be paid within six months i. e. , by July 14, that defendants 1 to 6 should execute the sale deed and register the same at the expense of the plaintiff and that till the execution of the sale deed the plaintiff should continue as a tenant at the agreed rent. According to the plaintiff, the said agreement took place in the presence of PWs. 2 and 3 and PW4 the father of the plaintiff. The 7th defendant was also stated to be present at the time. Contrary to the said agreement, defendants 4 and 5 executed a sale deed dated 1-2-1989 (Ex. B1) in favour of the 7th defendant covering the eastern half share in the suit site. Thereupon the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to defendants 1 to 7 on 10-4-1989 (Ex. A1) to which a reply (Ex. A7) was sent on 17-4-1989 denying the alleged oral agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and stating that after the death of Abdul Jaleel, there was a partition between his sons in which the eastern portion of the suit property fell to the share of defendants 4 and 5 and that the sale deed executed by them in favour of the 7th defendant is perfectly va

Click Here to Read the rest of this document