Ramaprasada Rao, J.- The first to the fourth defendants in O.S. No. 298 of 1966 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, are the appellants. The plaintiff, one C.S. Appavoo Udayar filed a suit for the specific performance of a contract under which the first defendant purported to convey the suit property for a sum and consideration of Rs. 11,500. The plaintiff also sought for re-delivery of possession of the suit properties and for a direction as against the first defendant to account for the mesne profits ever since the date he was dispossessed of the properties to the date of actual re-delivery of possession. The relevant facts which led to the institution of the suit for specific performance of 3rd October, 1966 are as follows:-

2. Under Exhibit A-1, dated 2nd May, 1962 the plaintiff mortgaged certain properties not covered by the suit. It was discovered that the plaintiff did not have any title to such properties. Consequent upon such a mis-conduct and mis-representation on the part of the plaintiff, and as the first defendant’s security was in jeopardy, he gave a complaint to the police for cheating as against the plaintiff, under section 420, Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the parties adjusted their serious differences in and by which the plaintiff agreed to execute a sale deed over the suit properties and did execute the sale deed under Exhibit A-3, dated 4th January, 1964 for a sum and consideration of Rs. 10,000. This document was registered as document No. 259 on 21st April, 1964. It may be of interest to note that consequent upon the adjustment of differences as above outside Court, the criminal case by then laid by the first defendant as against the plaintiff was dismissed and the plaintiff was discharged on 31st December, 1963. It is common ground that during the period of negotiations as above the necessary stamp papers for the sale of the suit properties by the plaintiff to the first defendant were purchased on 22nd and 31st of December, 1963. Though the sale deed was executed on 4th January, 1964 under Exhibit A-3, it was registered contemporaneously with another agreement Exhibit A-4, dated 8th January, 1964 in and by which the first defendant agreed to sell back the suit properties within one year from the date of execution of the sale deed Exhibit A-3. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff never made it appear that he was interested in the re-purchase of the property during the period of one year which was the period agreed upon for the reconveyance of the property by the first defendant to the plaintiff. As within the period contemplated for purchase under Exhibit A-4 the plaintiff did not seek for a reconveyance thereof, the first defendant sold the suit properties under Exhibit A-7, dated 29th November, 1965 to defendants 2 to 4, who thereafter transferred the properties in favour of the 5th and 6th defendants. The plaintiff’s case as pleaded in the Court below is that the sale deed Exhibit A-3 is not a sale at all and if at all one it is void under sections 23 and 16 of the Contract Act. His case is that he was coerced and compelled to execute the sale deed and he had not the necessary intent to convey title thereunder. In any event he would aver that the term of one year provided for the reconveyance of the property under Exhibit A-4 is not the essence of the contract and even the terms of Exhibit A-4 literally interpreted would only give the impression that it is an agreement to convey immoveable property which was the subject-matter of an earlier sale and not an agreement to reconvey. As in the case of contracts to convey immoveable property, time is never understood as the essence of the bargain, the first defendant cannot escape the legal liability to sell the property in accordance with the terms of Exhibit A-4 and that his later dealings under Exhibit A-7 whereby he conveyed the property to defendants 2 to 4, who in turn transferred the same to defendants 5 and 6 are inoperative

Click Here to Read the rest of this document