K.Sampath, J.: A.S. No.535 of 1984 arises out of O.S. No.657 of 1976 and A.S. No.596 of 1984 arises out of O.S. No.546 of 1981. There was a joint trial and common judgment. O.S. No.657 of 1976, filed on 23.9.1976, is a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the property set out in the schedule to the plaint. O.S. No.546 of 1981, filed on 28.1.1983, is for partition and separate possession of several items of properties, one of the items being the subject matter of O.S. No.657 of 1976.

2. The plaintiff in O.S. No.657 of 1976 is the 10th defendant in O.S. No.546 of 1981. The 8th defendant in O.S. No.657 of 1976 is the plaintiff in O.S. No.546 of 1981. Defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No.657 of 1976 are defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No.546 of 1981. Defendants 6 and 7 in O.S. No.657 of 1976 are defendants 7 and 8 in O.S. No.546 of 1981. Defendants 11 to 14 in O.S. No.657 of 1976 who are defendants 11 to 14 in O.S. No.546 of 1981 are the legal representatives of the sixth defendant/ Maruthappan alias Kulandaiappan. The 9th defendant in O.S. No.657 of 1976 is the 6th defendant in O.S. No.546 of 1981. The 10th defendant in O.S. No.657 of 1976 is Indian Overseas Bank and it is not a party in the other suit, while one Pandu Rangan a lessee is the 9th defendant in O.S. No.546 of 1981 and he is not a party in O.S. No.657 of 1976.

3. The case in O.S. No.657 of 1976 is as follows:

The plaintiff and one Rangasamy Konar entered into an agreement for sale on 1.7.1974 as per the terms of which Rangasamy Konar agreed to sell his property, described in the schedule to the plaintiff, for Rs.37,500 and received a sum of Rs.10,000 as advance on the same day; Rangasamy Konar represented to the plaintiff that the property belonged to him absolutely under a Court sale in his favour, that there were no encumbrances over the said property excepting a mortgage for Rs.17,000 in favour of the 10th defendant/ bank; some tenants and defendants 6 and 7 were occupying a portion of the property; it was agreed that the vendor Rangasamy Konar should give vacant possession to the plaintiff and in case of his default, the sale price should be reduced by Rs.36,000; the plaintiff had to pay the amount due to the 10th defendant/ bank from the balance of sale price, and to take a sale within a period of six months; Rangasamy Konar died on 27.8.1974; the first defendant Rangammal is his wife and defendants 2 to 5 his children; the plaintiff had been requesting them to get him vacant possession of the suit property, to cooperate with him for payment of the debut due to the 10th defendant and to get the documents from it, to produce the encumbrance certificate as mentioned in the sale agreement, and to execute the sale on receipt of balance sale price; he could not do anything about it as the 6th and the 7th defendants Ramaswamy and Krishnan started laying claim over the suit property stating that it was a joint family property belonging to the family consisting of themselves, defendants 8 and 9 and Late Rangasamy Konar; the plaintiff caused a notice to be issued on 22.12.1974 to defendants 1 to 5 calling upon them to properly complete the transaction; defendants 1 to 5 caused a reply to be sent with allegations charging the plaintiff; completion of the sale outside the Court having become impossible on account of the unhelpful and non-cooperative attitude of defendants 1 to 9, the suit came to be filed; the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; he was possessed of sufficient funds; he offered to pay to the 10th defendant and defendants 1 to 5 the amount due to them; he had done everything expected of him under the said agreement; he was ready and willing to deposit the balance sale price of Rs.26,000 as per the orders of the Court; the plaintiff was a tenant of a portion of the suit property; on account of failure on the part of defendants 1 to 9 and their wrongful claim, there were negotiations between the parties for quite a l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document