The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiffs cannot sustain the suits only for recovery of purchase monies without asking for setting aside the sale deeds.

K.GOVINDARAJAN,J.

The defendants in all the suits, preferred the above Letters Patent Appeals, having aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the learned Judge.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.4918 to 4920 of 1976, on the file of the City Civil court, Madras filed the suit for return of purchase money paid pursuant to the sale deed executed by the appellants in favour of the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendants obtained the said money on misrepresentation made by the defendants as if they got a clear title for the same.

3. The properties in question in all the suits were leased out in favour of the plaintiffs' ancestors and the properties leased out were vacant sites, the plaintiffs and their predecessors have put up superstructure over the properties and they have been enjoying the properties by paying meagre rent. The 2nd defendant is the son of Jayarao. So the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the defendants to purchase the properties for the consideration mentioned therein. Thereafter, the sale deeds were executed under Ex.A1, A4 and A7, dated 5.4.1972, 5.4.1972 and 14.12.1973. Subsequently, in 1976, the plaintiffs have come forward with the above suits seeking a prayer for direction directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the amount paid as sale consideration for the purpose of purchasing the property under Ex.A1, A4 and A7. It is stated in the plaint that they have purchased the property on the basis of misrepresentation made by the defendants as if they are the owners of the properties. But the plaintiffs came to know that the temple records show that the said properties belong to Arulmigu Madhava Perumal temple. With the above said pleadings, the plaintiffs have come forward with the suits to recover the purchase money paid.

4. The said suit was resisted by the defendants stating that they are the owners of the property, that there is no cause of action for sustaining the suit, that the suit filed for recovery of purchase money without asking to set aside the sale deeds cannot be sustained and that the suit without impleading the Madhava Perumal Devasthanam cannot be sustained.

5. The trial court without accepting the defence raised by the appellants decreed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants preferred Appeals in A.S.Nos.243 to 245 of 1982 on the file of this court. In the judgment dated 2.9.1998, the learned Judge confirmed the judgment of the trial court holding that the sale transaction in favour of the plaintiffs held to be void and so in view of Sec.55 of the Transfer of Property Act, the suits for repayment of purchase money without asking for cancellation of the documents are maintainable. With respect to the other objections that the suits were filed without any cause of action, the learned Judge found that the pleadings in the plaint coupled with the issue of notice prior to the filing of the suit and the evidence of the witnesses are taken into consideration, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action for filing each suit filed by the plaintiffs. The learned Judge also found that the plaintiffs have not pleaded that they have submitted the documents to the Tahsildar to consider with regard to the issue of patta to the plaintiffs, though such documents were sought for by the Tahsildar to consider their application. Aggrieved against the said common judgment, the defendants have preferred the above Appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Judge is not correct in holding that the sale in favour of the plaintiffs are void and so it is not necessary for the plaintiffs seeking a decree for cancellation of the document. He referred to various decisions, which we would deal with the same later. According to him, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs was tenant for a long number of years under the defendants accepting their right to lease out and even after executing the agreements, they had