Persons who acquired title under valid sale deed could recover possession from purchaser.

(Prayer: - These Second Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 29.2.1996 made in AS.Nos.43/92, 38/1992 and 42/1992, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 28.2.1992 made in OS.Nos.136/1988, 874/1988 and 700/1985, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur.)

1. The Appellant herein, who lost his case before the courts below in all the three suits, is the Appellant in all these Second Appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant herein is referred to as the Appellant in all these Second Appeals and the Respondents in SA.Nos.723 and 724/1996 and the Respondents 3 and 4 in SA.No.725/96 are referred to as the Respondents 1 and 2. The Respondents 1 and 2 in SA.No.725, viz. Lakshmi Ammal and Vedavalli are referred to by their names. One Gangadaran, who along with Lakshmiammal and Vedavalli executed the sale agreement dated 3.12.1981 in favour of the Appellant herein, died during the pendency of the first appeals.

3. The suit in OS.No.700/1985 was filed by the Appellant herein before the District Munsif Court, Ponneri for registration of the sale deed and recovery of possession, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal in AS.No.42/1992 before the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, filed by the Appellant herein was also dismissed. As against the same, SA.No.725/96 is filed by the Appellant herein.

4. The Respondents 1 and 2 in SA.Nos.723 and 724/1996 filed the suit in OS.No.136/88 before the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, against the Appellant herein for permanent injunction, which was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal in AS.No.43/1992 before the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, SA.No.723/96 has been filed.

5. The Respondents 1 and 2 in SA.Nos.723 and 724/1996 also filed another suit in OS.No.874/1988 before the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, against the Appellant herein for recovery of possession, which was also decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal in AS.No.38/92 before the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, filed by the Appellant herein was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, SA.No.724/96 is filed by the Appellant.

6. The Trial Court passed a common judgement in all the three suits. However, the lower Appellate Court passed separate judgements in the respective appeals. Considering the subject matter of these Second Appeals as well as the parties are also more or less same, all these Second Appeals are disposed of by this common judgement.

7. The case of the Appellant herein and one Gangadaran, Lakshmiammal and Vedavalli entered into an agreement dated 3.12.1981 for the sale of 700 sq.ft. of land out of 2021 sq.ft, which is the subject matter in all these Second Appeals and paid a sum of Rs.6,500/-, enabling the vendors to deposit the amount into the court as ordered by the Trial Court in OS.No.1062/75, wherein the said persons filed a petition under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act (herein after referred to as the Act), which was said to have been allowed. In view of the fact that though the said Gangadaran, Lakshmiammal and Vedavalli received the total consideration of Rs.6,500/-, as per the agreement for sale, they did not deliver possession, the suit in OS.No.700/85 was filed seeking for registration of the sale deed and recovery of possession.

8. The case of the Respondents 1 and 2 is that they have purchased the land to an extent of 2021 sq.ft. under the sale deed dated 4.8.1986 executed by one Rajamanickam, RV.Ranganathan and R.Niranjan and ever since the said date, they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties by paying necessary taxes and charges to the concerned authorities; that based on the said sale deed, they have filed OS.No.136/1988 for permanent injunction, restraining the Appellant from interfering with their possession; that the Respondents 1 and 2 also filed another suit in OS.No.874/1988 against the Appellant for recovery of po