An agreement for sale must contain all the essential terms of the contract, such as the subject matter of the sale, the purchase price, and the time and place of delivery. A plaintiff must plead and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the time of entering into the agreement till the end. A suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. if the cause of action for the subsequent claim was available to the claimant when he sought relief in the first suit.

M. Chockalingam, J.

These two appeals have arisen from a common judgment dated 08.04.2008 rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.S.Nos.13 of 1997 and 559 of 1996 respectively.

2. The plaintiff in C.S.No.559 of 1996 sought for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and for other relief’s with the following averments;

(a) The plaintiff is the owner of the house, ground and premises bearing door No.F 188, IX Street, Anna Nagar East, Madras-102. The Director of the defendants company approached the plaintiff to purchase the property and pursuant to negotiation, it was agreed that the defendant would obtain permission from this Court by paying the sum of Rs.12, 85,013.08 towards security for the release of title deeds which were given as security. Apart from that, the defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.59 lakhs as consideration to purchase the said property. Thus, the total consideration was fixed at Rs.71, 85,013.08. The defendant also agreed to evict the tenant, who was occupying the house. The plaintiff received a total advance of Rs.2 lakhs on 30th January, 1995 and on 17th February, 1995. In the receipts issued by the plaintiff, all the above conditions have not been incorporated since they were receipts. The plaintiff had signed in the agreement even without going through the recitals because the signatures were obtained by the Director of the defendants company while the plaintiff was boarding the train for Coimbatore. In the agreement, a clause has been included to the effect that the tenant shall vacate and hand over possession to the defendants Director. In the said agreement, there was nothing to authorise the defendant to pay any amount to the tenant for evicting him. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendant got the tenant vacated and later on, the defendant brought some documents to show as if a sum of Rs.75, 000/- was paid to the tenant in considerion of vacating the premises. The defendant also brought a draft sale deed to the plaintiff showing the sale consideration as Rs.59 lakhs, which was not acceptable to the plaintiff and hence, the transaction was not proceeded. No mention was made in the said draft sale deed with regard to the deposit of Rs.12 lakhs and odd to the Court for getting the permission and release of the documents.

(b) The defendant filed a suit in C.S.No.1063 of 1995 on the file of this Court, claiming to be in possession of the said property and praying for the relief of a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his possession and enjoyment till vacated under due process of law. He also filed an application in O.A.No.767 of 1995 and obtained ex parte interim injunction. In the said application, the defendant made it clear that the defendant did not seek any protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, but claimed that the possession should be protected and the same should not be invaded by unlawful means. In the said application, interim injunction was granted on a finding that the defendant was not a trespasser and was entitled for the interim injunction. Even though it was originally agreed for sale of the property to the defendant, under law, the defendant was not entitled to enforce any right to purchase the property as there was no concluded contract. As there was no written agreement, the appropriate authority cannot issue no objection certificate and thereby, the same is hit by Section 269 UC of the Income Tax Act. Further, the actual total sale consideration has not been clearly mentioned. Further more, the defendant adopted illegal tactics to obtain possession, by colluding the then tenant and by obtaining interim injunction by suppressing the facts. Apart from the above, in view of the encumbrance of attachment ordered by this Court, the property cannot be alienated. In AAO No.1039 of 1992, this Court, by judgment dated 212. 1995, has confirmed the attachment made by the trial court in I.A.No174