The importance of properly framing a suit and seeking relief conducive to the relief sought, and the necessity of a regular Sale Deed for the transfer of proprietary rights.

1. This Second Appeal has been directed as against the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.09.2013, passed in A.S.No.47 of 2013, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 08.02.2013, passed in O.S.No.197 of 2011, by the learned District Munsif, Nilakottai.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant are blood brothers. The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.197 of 2011, in the Court of District Munsif, Nilakottai, seeking declaration as to his title based on Ex.A3 Sale Agreement and for consequential injunction.

3. Under Ex.A3, dated 21.01.1995, the defendant is agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.59,000/- inclusive of the advance paid under Ex.A3 and further amounts paid under Ex.A4, totally Rs.62,000/- has been paid. However, a regular Sale Deed has not been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff had filed the suit for a declaration as to his title to the suit property.

4. The respondent/defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement raising several contentions.

5. It is pertinent to note that during the trial, the defendant had admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.

6. The learned District Munsif, Nilakottai, came to the conclusion that as on date as no sale deed has been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dismissed the suit.

7. In A.S.No.47 of 2013, the learned Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul, concurring with the view of the learned District Munsif, Nilakottai, and thus dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff.

8. Aggrieved, the plaintiff had directed the present Second Appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that since both the appellant and the respondent are blood brothers, the plaintiff thought that his brother/defendant would honour his commitment, after receiving the entire sale consideration, he did not do it.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that immediately, on execution of Ex.A3 Sale Agreement, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property and he is enjoying the suit property. Even during trial, the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. In these circumstances, at least the lesser relief of injunction might have been granted to the plaintiff.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that both the Courts below have took the view correctly. There is nothing to interfere with that. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the very right of the plaintiff over the suit property itself gone and there is no question of trimming the tail. Now, the plaintiff cannot woven a new case that too at the Second Appeal stage. Therefore, granting of the lesser relief sought for would not arise.

12. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the case records and the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below.

13. Right to an immovable property could be acquired by regular title deed or by adverse possession or by disintegrating of the existence of common ownership to a property by metes and bounds.

14. Sale of immovable property is regulated under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Indian Registration Act. One of the mode of acquisition of property is by way of purchase by way of a Sale Deed. Execution of Sale Agreement is not equivalent to execution of a regular Sale Deed. Ofcourse, a Sale Agreement will become enforceable in a Court of Law. Based on Sale Agreement, the equitable relief of specific performance can be asked for.

15. In this case, the appellant and the defendant are blood brothers. Human bondage is different from persons abiding interest in money and property. They may take even common mess, but their money and property will not be common. Whatever might be the closeness of relationship right to property could be attained only as per Law.

16. As per Ex.A3, it