Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 559
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR
G. Sankaralingam
Versus
Y. Surya Rao & Others
A.S.No.903 of 1997 A.S.No.540 of 2001 and A.S.No.541 of 2001
Decided On : 13-02-2007
T.R. Rajaraman, R3, A.K. Lakshmi Narayanan, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of the plaintiff's rights under Section 53(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, based on the plaintiff's possession and collection of rents, and the defendant's failure to repay the sale consideration.
Headnote:
Sale Agreement - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 53(a) - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the defendant agreed to sell the property in its entirety for the amounts referred to in the respective agreements. The plaintiff was in physical possession of the property and inducted tenants, and the defendant did not repay the sale consideration. The court upheld the plaintiff's entitlement to the suit claim and ordered the return of the advance amount paid by the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the defendant for a property. The plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration and was in possession of the property. The defendant dispossessed the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the suit claim and ordered the return of the advance amount paid by the plaintiff. The defendant's dispossessing the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit was condemned by the court.
Issues: The issues included the intention to sell the entire property, the injunction obtained by the plaintiff, the dispossession of the plaintiff, and the entitlement to the suit claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the plaintiff's entitlement to the suit claim based on the defendant's agreement to sell the property in its entirety, the plaintiff's possession and collection of rents, and the defendant's failure to repay the sale consideration. The defendant's dispossessing the plaintiff during the suit was condemned by the court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and ordered the parties to bear their respective costs.
These appeals are against the common judgment dated 211. 1995 in O.S.No.230 of 1990, O.S.No.682 of 1992 and O.S.No.74 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee in and by which the learned Sub Judge after analysing the evidence in depth decreed all the suits as prayed for.
2. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeals have been filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.230 of 1990 and O.S.No.682 of 1992 and defendant in O.S.No.74 of 1993.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.230 of 90.
4. The first defendant viz., G. Sankaralingam in O.S.230/90 who is also the first defendant and defendant in O.S.682/92 and O.S.74/93 respectively.
5. The 2nd and 3nd defendant in O.S.230/90 is the plaintiff in O.S.682/92.
6.The plaintiff in O.S.230/90 is the 2nd defendant and plaintiff in O.S.682/92 and O.S.74/93 respectively.
7. The plaint pleadings in O.S.No.230/90 and O.S.74/93 is the written pleadings of the second defendant in O.S.682/92.
8. The defendant G. Sankaralingam filed written statement common to both the suits of O.S.230/90 and O.S.74/93. The common plea of the plaintiff in O.S.No.230/90 and O.S.74/93 and the second defendant in O.S.No.632/92 are as follows:-
1. The first defendant is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the first defendant dated 22. 89 whereby the first defendant agreed to convey the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only) and on the date of the agreement itself, the first defendant received an advance amount of Rs.1,03,500/-from the plaintiff, the receipt of which sum, the first defendant acknowledged in the said agreement itself. In the said agreement itself, the plaintiff was directed to discharge the mortgage in favour of "the Mambalam Kasi Viswanathar Co-operative Building Society Ltd.". The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.48,100/- to the said society on 22. 1989 and discharged the said mortgage and got back the mortgage deed and the original sale deed dated 28. 1982 executed by A. Sheriff and A. Nazar in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit property and also other material papers handed over by the first defendant to the said Society. The said society also executed a registered deed of conveyance dated 15. 1989. Apart from the abovesaid payment of Rs.48,100/-on 22. 1989 direct to the said Society, on 22. 89 itself a further sum of Rs.26,400/-was paid to the first defendant and the first defendant acknowledged the receipt of the said sum of Rs.26,400/- by making an endorsement on the back of the said agreement. Thus by 22. 1989 the total amount paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant is Rs.1,78,000/-. The various other particulars of the payments made by the plaintiff to the first defendant on different dates towards the sale consideration and the first defendant also acknowledged the receipt of the said amounts by making endorsements on the back of the said agreement.
8. 2. Thus by 6. 1989 the entire sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to the first defendant. The 1st defendant after the receipt of the entire sale consideration also placed the plaintiff in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Now the plaintiff is occupying a portion of the suit property and the remaining portion of the suit property are occupied by the tenants who have already attorned the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. The tenants are A. Thankaraj, Mrs. M. Vasantha, T.M. Sheriff, K.J.R. Chandran, A.K. Khaja Mohideen, P.S.T.S. Subramani. The aforesaid tenants were originally occupying their respective portions in the suit property as tenants under the first defendant and after the plaintiff was placed in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the said tenants attorned the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff and are paying rent to the plaintiff.
8. 3. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the c
