Agreement for sale of land in excess of ceiling limit held invoid.

Srinivasan, J.

This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance instituted by the appellant here in. It is the case of the appellant that under Ex.A-1,dated 14. 1971 defendants l and 2 agreed to sell the suit properties at the rate of Rs.4,500 per acre. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid as advance on the date of agreement. The total consideration works out to Rs.66,040. Initially, it was agreed that the sale should be executed within a period of one year. On 4. 1972, an endorsement was made extending the period for completion of the transaction till 5. 1972. On 5. 1972 another endorsement was made by which the period was extended to 15. 1972. On 15. 1972 an endorsement was made evidencing payment of Rs.10,000 by way of further advance and extending the time to 18. 1972. There after, there was no extention of time as such. On 8. 1972 a sum of Rs.19,000 was paid and a receipt was executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.39,000 in all. One Thirumalaiappa filed a suit O.S.No.1670 of 1971 for injunction restraining the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with his alleged possession. He claimed to be a tenant of the suit properties. The fourth defendant herein, who is the son of the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.845 of 1972 for an injunction against Thirumalaiappan and the second defendant as well as the present plaintiff. The fourth defendant had purchased l/4th share in the suit properties earlier. The plaintiff claimed that he was a tenant of the property even before the suit agreement was entered. The suit filed by Thirumalaiappa was dismissed and the suit filed by the fourth defendant was decreed. The appeals against the decrees were dismissed and the second appeals in this Court, viz., S.A.No.2001 of 1978 and S.A.No.2335 of 1978 were disposed on 8. 1979. The second appeal which arose out of Thirumalaiappa’s suit was dismissed, but the second appeal which arose out of the fourth defendant’s suit was allowed and the decree was set aside with the result that O.S.No.845 of 1972 was also dismissed.

2. Soon after the disposal of the appeals in the first appellate court, the plaintiff issued notice to defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.A-15 dated 29. 1972 calling upon them to execute the sale deed. They were received by the defendants on 29. 1972 as evident from the postal acknowledgments. There was no reply thereto. The plaintiff issued another notice on 27. 1978 under Ex.A-18.Tothata reply was sent by defendants land 2 on 37. 1978 under Ex.A-20. They denied their liability to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is not necessary to go into the details of the reply notice. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 12. 1980.

3. The third defendant claims under a prior agreement dated 12. 1970 by which the second defendant for herself and as guardian of the first defendant agreed to sell the suit properties to him. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was not aware of the alleged agreement in favour of the third defendant and in any event, it was not a valid one. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 are bound to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance amount. It is the case of the plaintiff that he continues to be in possession as he was a tenant previously and even after the agreement he continues to be a tenant till the execution of the sale deed.

4. The defendants contested the suit on several grounds. It is again not necessary to set out the details of the defence. Suffice it to point out that the defendants contended that the plaintiff was aware of the earlier agreement in favour of the third defendant and his agreement was itself only on the footing that in case the third defendant fails to complete the transaction, the plaintiff could have a sale deed in his favour. A plea of limitation was raised by the defendants that the suit was barred. It was also contended that the s