A right to purchase land under the City Tenants Protection Act is not assignable and cannot be the subject of a contract of sale.

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J. :- The unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 4305 of 1964 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant. The first defendant is a lessee of a piece and parcel of land measuring 780 sq. ft. in R. S. No. 35/1 and 32 in Nungambakkam, Machay's gardens, Thousand Lights, Madras. Admittedly defendants 2 to 5 are the owners of this property. Exs. A.3 to A.5 evidence such a lease of the land in favour of the first defendant. It appears that the first defendant put up a structure on the land so leased out to her by defendants 2 to 5 and gained an entitlement under the provisions of the City Tenants Protection Act to purchase the land over which the superstructure was put up by her as and when she was sought to be evicted by the owners. It is common ground that defendants 2 to 5 filed an ejectment suit No. 35 of 1960 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction of the first defendant. The first defendant thereafter, pursuant to her statutory rights under the City Tenants Protection Act, filed the usual application under Sec. 9 thereof and obtained the necessary order entitling her to purchase suit land from defendants 2 to 5. This appears from Ex. A.1 and under the said judgment of the court and the ancillary orders under Section 9 she was enabled to purchase the land for a sum of Rs. 1950 and she was also given the concession of paying the same in instalments. It appears that the first defendant defaulted at one time in the payment of instalments, but such a delay in the payment of instalments towards the purchase price was condoned by an order of the court of Small Causes under Ex. A.2 dated 21-9-1964.

2. Whilst things remained so nebulous and uncertain, in so far as the title of the first defendant to the land in question was concerned, she appears to have entered into an agreement under Ex. A.9 dated 7-11-1962, in and by which she agreed to sell the above piece of land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 6000. The usual terms were incorporated in the said agreement. It is also equally common ground that, pursuant to the said agreement of sale, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 100 to the first defendant on the date of the agreement, a sum of Rupees 1301-2-0 to the credit of the ejectment Suit No. 35 of 1960 on the file of the court of Small Causes, and a further sum of Rs. 161-25 towards the decree debt of the first defendant. The plaintiff claims that he paid, in addition, a sum of Rs. 1070-30 towards the sale price. In all, the pliantiff claims that he paid a sum of Rs. 2632-75 and was awaiting the completion of the sale. He further alleges that on 21-12-1964 the first defendant entered into a compromise with the owners, defendants 2 to 5 pursuant to which the first defendant delivered vacant possession of the land to the owners and got sufficient compensation therefor. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the said compromise was a collusive one, that defendants 2 to 5 knew the rights which the plaintiff had under Ex. A.9 and that defendants 2 to 5 are equally bound by the agreement of sale entered into by the first defendant with him. Lastly he claims that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to obtain the land by paying the balance of the purchase price. Hence he prayed for a decree for specific performance of the agreement covered by Ex. A.9.

3. The first defendant's case, inter alia, was that the structure erected on the land did not belong to her, but was constructed by one Appu Nair, who was maintaining her for the past 25 years. She denied having received the sum of Rs. 1070-30, though she admitted the other amounts referred to by the plaintiff. She would also allege that she was not aware of the contents of Ex. A.9, that she only signed a blank paper and that the plaintiff was making use of it, and in that context, she would plead that there was no agreement of sale at all. She would further allege that there were negotiatio