Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Koovam Krishna Reddy & Others – Appellants
Versus
M. Arumugam & Others – Respondents
S.A.Nos. 764 to 766 of 1996
Decided On : 07-01-2020
For the Appellant :M/s. Vedavalli Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M. Prabakar, M/s. R. Aparna Reddy, Advocates
The validity of the sale agreement dated 16.04.1978 (Ex.A.1) and the entitlement to specific performance.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Section 100 - Specific Performance - O.S.Nos.303 of 1985, 644 of 1986, 388 of 1989 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sale agreement dated 16.04.1978 - Ex.A.1 - Ex.A.2 - Ex.A.3 - Ex.A.5 - Court analyzed the evidences both documentary and oral in detail and concluded rightly.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed suits for specific performance, declaration, and injunction in relation to the suit schedule property. The defendants contested the claims stating that the agreements were false and fabricated.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court decreed the suits in O.S.Nos.303 of 1985 and 644 of 1986, and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.388 of 1989. The first appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.303 of 1985 and O.S.No.388 of 1989, and modified the judgment and decree in O.S.No.644 of 1986. The Second Appeal Court dismissed all the second appeals.
Issues: Validity of the sale agreements, possession and enjoyment of the suit property, and entitlement to shares in the common well.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the sale agreement dated 16.04.1978 (Ex.A.1) was valid and that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance. The Court also found that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and entitled to the shares in the common well.
Final Decision: All the second appeals in SA.Nos.764 to 766 of 1996 were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1995, in A.S.No.75 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram, confirming the decree and judgment dated 26.10.1993 in O.S.No.303 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirutani.
This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1995, in A.S.No.76 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram, partially allowing the appeal by modifying the decree and judgment dated 26.10.1993 in O.S.No.644 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirutani.
This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1995, in A.S.No.77 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram, confirming the decree and judgment dated 26.10.1993 in O.S.No.388 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirutani.)
These second appeals are arising out of common judgment and decree passed in AS.Nos.75, 76 and 77 of 1994 dated 24.11.1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram confirming the common judgment and decree dated 26.10.1993 passed in O.S.Nos.303 of 1985, 644 of 1986 and 388 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruttani.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. The appellants in SA.No.764 of 1996 are the defendants in O.S.No.303 of 1985 and the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.303 of 1985 is that the defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. The first defendant and also on behalf of the second and third defendants who were minors then, executed agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiffs on 16.04.1978 and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for the sale consideration of Rs.1,050/- to the plaintiffs. The fist defendant received for himself and on behalf of the defendants 2 and 3, the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,050/- on the date of agreement namely 16.04.1978. Thereafter the defendants put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs took possession and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of sale agreement dated 16.04.1978 continuously. In terms of the sale agreement, the defendants agreed to register the sale deed whenever called by the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs are ready with the sale deed for registration, the defendants postponed the same for some reasons. Therefore the plaintiffs caused legal notice to the defendants on 27.09.1985 calling upon the first defendant to execute registered sale deed in their favour in respect of the suit schedule property. The said notice was duly received by the first defendant on 30.07.1985. Even then, they failed to register the sale deed in their favour. Hence, the said suit for specific performance.
3.1. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.644 of 1986 is that there are three plaintiffs. They filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the well situated in the suit schedule property, wherein 3/18 share belongs to the first plaintiff, 13/18 share belongs to the second plaintiff and 2/18 share belongs to the third plaintiff. The father of the first and second plaintiff died leaving behind them and also other two brothers. Even 15 years before filing the suit, they partitioned the property orally. Accordingly, they are entitled for above respective shares in the well. While partition, 1/3 share in the well was allotted to the second plaintiff. Another 1/3 share was allotted to one Munusamy Reddy, who died intestate with three legal heirs. They were allotted 1/9 share each in the common well, in which 1/9 share which was allotted to one Maliappa Reddy, was purchased by one, Natesa Reddy, another his brother. Thereafter the said Maliappa Reddy along with share in total 2/9 share in the well, sold out to the defendants on 12.07.1984. Another 1/3 share which wa
