JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs having aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below have filed this second appeal.

2. The suit property originally belonged to one C.A. Narayana Rao. He bequeathed life interest in the property mentioned in ‘A’ Schedule to the will annexed to Ex.A-5 in favour of his first daughter Rukmani Ammal, and thereafter absolutely to his grandsons born to Rukmani Ammal. The said Will was probated in O.P. No.118 of 1961. The respondent claiming that he is the tenant with respect to the vacant land bearing plot No.107, Door No.29, Deenadayalu Street, T.Nagar, Madras-17, measuring an extent of 1124 sq.ft. filed a petition under Sec.9(1)(a)(ii) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) in eject O.P. No.63 of 1973 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Madras, to direct Rukmani Ammal, the respondent therein to sell the said property to him at a price to be fixed by the Court.

3. The said Rukmani Ammal contested the petition contending inter alia that the petitioner in that O.P. was not a tenant to claim benefit under the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, as he was let into possession in December, 1956. It is also specifically stated that Rukmani Ammal was only a life estate holder, and she has got no right to alienate the said property. In the order dated 20.7.1978, without considering whether Rukmani Ammal was having any right to sell the property, the learned trial Judge allowed that petition. Subsequently, in the order dated 28.4.1982, the IV Judge, Court of Small Cases, Chennai, on the basis of the report of the Commissioner held that the tenant is entitled to purchase 999 sq.ft. alone in the petition mentioned property from Rukmani Ammal. Subsequently, in the order dated 31.8.1983, the IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai quantified the price to be paid by the tenant to Rukmani Ammal at Rs.23,750.

4. Meanwhile, Rukmani Ammal died on 5.8.1985 and the appellants started to exercise their right as absolute owners of the property. Thereafter, tenant/ respondent herein filed M.P. No.1791 of 1984 to direct the appellants herein to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the said land. The said application was filed stating that "further, now I understand that the respondent (Rukmani Ammal) is only a life interest holder and the absolute right vests with the 2nd and 3rd respondents, I am able to obtain their name and address only now. Since this Hon’ble Court held that I am entitled to purchase the interest in the land as a city tenant under Sec.9 of the said Act, the respondents’ family are liable to execute the sale deed in my favour." The same was contested by the appellants stating that the orders were obtained only against limited owner, namely, Rukmani Ammal, and she was not entitled to convey the property and so the tenant cannot ask the appellants to execute the sale deed.

5. In spite of the specific defence and the averments made in the affidavit, the lower Court while disposing of the said M.P. No.1791 of 1984 proceeded as if D.W.1 Rukmani Ammal’s son has not given any evidence raised any such objections in the counter. Furthermore, it is specifically stated that the order passed against the deceased Rukmani Ammal is binding upon her heirs.

6. Meanwhile the appellants filed suit in O.S. No.2129 of 1987 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras seeking a decree to declare that the orders dated 20.7.1978 and 31.8.1983 in O.P. No.63 of 1973 obtained by the respondent herein against Rukmani Ammal were not binding on the plaintiffs, and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the ejectment O.P. No.63 of 1973 to get the sale executed through Court order. That M.P. No.1791 of 1984 was allowed. Aggrieved against that order, the appellants filed an Appeal in Ejectment Appeal No.7 of 1986.

7. In the appeal in Eject Appeal No.7 of 1986, the learned District Judge, appreciating the pendency of the said suit,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document