JUDGMENT. -The fifth defendant is the appellant. The first respondent filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale executed by one Ayyakannu Gounder and defendants 1 and 2, who are the sons of Ayyakannu Gounder The contract of sale is dated 23rd April, 1970, under which Ayyakannu and his two sons agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,500 and received a sum of Rs. 2,500 as an advance. The balance of Rs. 2,000 was agreed to be paid within a period of one year. The plaintiff further stated that in pursuance of the agreement of sale the plaintiff was. put in possession of the suit property and that he was in possession on the date of the suit and had raised groundnut crops thereon. The suit itself was filed on 18th December, 1970. Since by that time Ayyakannu had died, the suit was originally filed against defendants 1 to 4, who are the sons, daughter and wife of the said Ayyakannu. The plaintiff had made the usual averments In the plaint that in pursuance of the agreement to sell he was ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration and in fact he tendered the money ; but the defendants would not execute the sale deed. The plaintiff also deposited the balance of consideration of Rs. 2,000 along with the plaint.

2. The first defendant filed a written statement in which he stated that on 17th February, 1970 he had sold the property to one Annamalai Gounder, who has now been impleaded as the fifth defendant in the suit, for a consideration of Rs. 7,000 and that the sale deed also has been registered. The first defendant further contended that though he executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, the property was highly undervalued and the consideration was palpably low. The property was worth more than Rs. 6,500 to Rs. 7,000 on the date of the sale and it was undervalued to defeat the provisions of the Stamp Act. The first defendant, therefore, prayed that the Court should not exercise its discretionary power of granting relief for specific performance to the plaintiff, who had come to the Court with unclean hands.

3. When coming to know of the sale in favour of Annamalai Gounder, the plaintiff impleaded him as the fifth defendant in the suit and amended the plaint contending that the fifth defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value and that, therefore, he could ask for specific performance even against the fifth defendant The fifth defendant filed a written statement stating that he had purchased the property for a valuable consideration of Rs. 7,000 under a registered sale deed without the knowledge of the prior agreement in favour of the plaintiff and that as a bona fide purchaser for value, he is entitled to remain in possession. The fifth defendant also stated that he had taken possession of the property in pursuance of the sale in his favour.

4. Though the first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 to 4 none of them let in any evidence either oral or documentary. The plaintiff examined himself and 2 others and also marked the agreement of sale. The fifth defendant examined himself and another third party and filed the registered sale deed in his favour. On a consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the fifth defendant was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the original contract in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court did not agree that there was any undervaluation in order to defeat the provisions of the Stamp Act and ultimately decreed the suit as prayed for. It may be mentioned that the trial Court was willing and in fact proceeded to consider the case on the basis that the fifth defendant had paid the sum of Rs. 7,000 as per the sale deed to defendants 1 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the original owner, Ayyakannu. The trial Court also proceeded on the assumption that the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement to sell, was put in possession of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document