Grant of relief for specific performance is discretion of court.

Common Judgment: M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

Arokiasamy and minors filed a suit in O.S.No.85 of 1986 for declaration and injunction against Renganatha Gounder and others. Renganatha Gounder filed a suit in O.S.No.47 of 1987 seeking for specific performance of the suit property against Arokiasamy and another.

2. Arokiasamy in O.S.No.85 of 1986 claimed in the suit for declaration and injunction stating that the said property was purchased by him from Sahadevan, 7th defendant and the possession was being disturbed by Ranganatha Gounder and others, the defendants 1 to 6.

3. Renganatha Gounder, the first defendant in O.S.No.85 of 1986 claimed for the relief of specific performance in O.S.No.47 of 1987 against the vendor Sahadevan and Arokiasamy, the purchaser, stating that he obtained a sale agreement from the original owner Sahadevan and as such, both the vendor and purchaser should execute the sale deed in his favour.

4. Since the issue would relate to the same property, a common trial was conducted in both the suits. In the common judgment and decree rendered on 29.3.1989, the trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.85 of 1986 for declaration and injunction in favour of Arokiasamy and minors and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.47 of 1987 rejecting the claim for specific performance by Renganatha Gounder. This common judgment and decree is challenged in these two appeals.

5. Since these two appeals arise out of a common judgment, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

6. We will now go into the details of the case of the respective parties.

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.85 of 1986.

8. The case of Arokiasamy, representing the minor plaintiffs in O.S.No.85 of 1986 who are the defendants in O.S.No.47 of 1987, is as follows:

"The suit property belongs to Sahadeva Gounder, the 7th defendant. He sold the property to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed for a valuable consideration on 5.9.1986. On the same day, the plaintiffs were given possession of the property by the 7th defendant. From then onwards, the possession and enjoyment were with the plaintiffs. While so, Renganatha Gounder, the 1st defendant sent a notice to the plaintiffs on 27.9.1986, claiming that he has got a sale agreement dated 20.11.1983 in his favour from Sahadevan, the 7th defendant for a sum of Rs.31,000/- and in pursuance of the agreement, he paid Rs.21,300/-. This notice was sent to both the 7th defendant and the plaintiffs, the purchasers. The plaintiffs gave a reply to the said notice stating that they were not aware of the alleged sale agreement, and they are the bona-fide purchasers for value without notice and as such, the first defendant cannot claim any title against the plaintiffs. After receipt of the reply, the first defendant, along with the defendants 2 to 6, in order to dispossess the plaintiffs, began to indulge in unlawful acts, thereby disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction."

9. The case of the defendants 1 to 6 in O.S.No.85 of 1986 who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.47 of 1987, is as follows:

"The plaintiffs Arokiasamy and minors are not the bona-fide purchasers. On 20.11.1983, the sale agreement was executed between Renganatha Gounder, the first defendant and Sahadevan, the 7th defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.31,000/- and towards the advance, Rs.10,000/- was paid. On the very same day, the possession of the suit property was handed over to the first defendant by the 7th defendant. Since then, the first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He was also paying electricity charges. From the beginning, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. After six months of the agreement, he paid Rs.7,000/- on the first occasion, Rs.4,000/- on the second occasion and Rs.600/- on the third occasion. He also made payment towards motor loan and curren