Purchaser came to Court with false case not entitled for the relief prayed.

SRINIVASAN,:

1. These four appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered in four suits tried together in which evidence is recorded in common. The earliest suit is at present bearing the number O.S.No.3 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamallee. That was filed on 11.11.1981. That is a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.2,975 upto October, 1981. That suit has been filed by T.G.Sairam and G.Rama. They have claimed title to the property under a purchase dated 16.2.1981. The only defendant in the suit is the appellant before us.

2. The nextsuit in chronology is O.S.No.52 of 1984 filed by the appellant herein in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee for specific performance of a contract dated 1.6.1978 directing the defendants to execute and register a sale deed and to receive a sum of Rs.37,500 or any other sum of as may be determined by the Court. The defendants in that suit are R.B.S.Mani, R.Sankaran, T.G.Sairam and Rama Bai. Defendants 3 and 4 in that suit are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.3 of 1987 referred to earlier. The first defendant was the prior owner of the suit property and the second defendant was his power agent. That suit having been dismissed, the plaintiff in that suit has preferred A.S.No.1284 of 19S9. The other two suits are O.S.Nos.349 of 1987 and 68 of 1988 for recovery of arrears of rent for subsequent periods, one for October, 1981 to June, 1984 and another for July, 1984 to January, 1988 and the only defendant in both the suits is the appellant herein. The suits were decreed and the defendant has preferred appeals. Thus, the appellant in all the four appeals is the same person, while respondents 3 and 4 in A.S.No.1284 of 1989, which arises out of the suit for specific performance are respondents 1 and 2 in other three appeals. In A.S.No.1284 of 1989, two more persons have got impleaded as respondents 5 and 6 on the ground that they have purchased the property* from respondents 3 and 4 during the pendency of the appeal on 6.9.1991. In the other appeals they have been impleaded as respondents 3 and 4. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties by their rank in A.S.No.1284 of 1989.

3. Under Ex.B-11, dated 28.5.1978, the appelant entered into a lease agreement with reference to the suit properly with respondents 1 and 2 for a period of 11 months. The lease is to commence from 1.6.1978. The rent is fixed at Rs.200 per mensem and charges for amenities provided is fixed at Rs.

150 per mensem. Thus, the appellant is liable to pay Rs.350 per mensem under the deed of lease. The other terms of the lease deed are usually found in all the lease deeds. It is the case of the appellant that there was an agreement for sale of the suit property in his favour on 1.6.1978. According to him, he got into possession of the property only in part performance of the agreement for sale. In fact, he denied the tenancy in his written statement filed in the suit for possession instituted by respondents 3 and 4 in 1981, as stated earlier. The agreement for sale is admittedly oral. The exact date of the agreement is not clear from the evidence, though according to the appellant it was on 1.6.1978. According to respondents 1 and 2 it was some time after the appellant became a lessee under Ex.B-11. The first document as between the parties after Ex.B-11 is Ex.A-3 dated 1.3.1979. That is a letter written by the second respondent to the appellant. It is stated therein that a cheque issued by the appellant had been dishonoured and the appellant should meet the second respondent the very next day without fail. The purpose of the meeting is not clearly mentioned, but it is stated that the matter is very urgent and he should start as soon as he gets the letter. [After adverting to and analysing the documentary evidence on record, the court proceeded as follows: Ed]

19. Thereafter, the appellant filed on 23.9.1982 the suit for specific performance. In the plaint it is alleged t