JUDGMENT :

N. SESHASAYEE, J.

1. The Plaintiff, who has lost her Suit for Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement said to have been executed by the First Defendant, and to declare a Mortgage Deed executed by the First Defendant to the Third Defendant post the Sale Agreement, successively before the Courts below, has preferred this Appeal. Parties would be referred to by their rank before the Trial Court.

Pleadings:

(A) Plaint:

2.1. The dispute is over a Plot measuring 1,500 sq. ft. allotted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to the First Defendant. The Plaint alleges:

(i) The Suit property was allotted to the First Defendant by the Housing Board on 12.2.1982, and there was an obligation on the First Defendant to pay the Sale consideration in monthly installments. The First Defendant struggled for finances to pay the monthly installments.

(ii) The Plaintiff is a relative of the First Defendant. To save the property from the peril of cancellation of Allotment, in the eventuality of the First Defendant failing to pay the monthly dues, it was agreed that the First Defendant would sell the Suit property to the Plaintiff, for a total Sale consideration of Rs. 7,000. A Sale-Deed too was executed on 13.1.1984. One of the Attestors to the Sale-Deed was the 2nd Defendant, the husband of the First Defendant. The, Sale-Deed however, could not be registered, as it was executed beyond the office hours of the Sub-Registry. Possession of the Suit property however, was handed over to the Plaintiff. Ever since, she has been in possession of the Suit property. After the execution of the Sale-Deed that was awaiting registration, the Plaintiff began paying the monthly installments payable to the Housing Board. It was agreed to between the parties that a regular Sale-Deed would be executed immediately after the payment of last instalment.

(iii) Be that as it may, Plaintiffs husband died on 28.12.1984. Since the relationship between the parties remained cordial, the Plaintiff has been merely requesting the First Defendant and her husband, the Second Defendant to execute the Sale-Deed.

(iv) Even as the Plaintiff was waiting for the registration of the Sale-Deed to go through, on 9.6.1992, the First Defendant had obtained a Sale-Deed from the Housing Board. Subsequently, the Defendants 1 and 2 had mortgaged the entire property with the 3rd Defendant for a sum of Rs. 4.0 lakhs. That was on 23.1.1998. The Plaintiff came to know of these developments only when the 3rd Defendant brought the property to sale. All along the Plaintiff continued to be in peaceful physical possession of the property for well over 15 years (at the time of filing the Suit).

(v) Soon, the Plaintiff faced the threat of dispossession as she was required to vacate the property within a stipulated date. She therefore issued a Notice, dated 11.1.1999 (Ext.A7) to the First Respondent, but it was not replied. This was therefore, followed by a Legal Notice issued through her Advocate dated 26.3.1999, (Ext.A8) to execute the Sale-Deed free of Mortgage. This was Responded to by the First Defendant with her Reply dated 7.4.1999 (Ext.A9). It is alleged in the said reply that Plaintiff's son Narayanan was a tenant in the Suit property since 1985, and that the Plaintiff resided along with him only as his dependent. This necessitated the Plaintiff to issue Ext.A10 Rejoinder, dated 16.4.1999, clarifying the fact that her son did not live with her in the Suit property.

(vi) As things stood thus, the 3rd Defendant, the Mortgagee of the Suit property, notified the sale of the Suit property by Public Auction through its Auctioneer. Since, the First Defendant did not have any right to execute the Mortgage Deed in favour of the Third Defendant, the sale itself has to be stopped.

Hence, the Suit for Specific Performance along with a prayer to declare the Mortgage executed in favour of the 3rd Defendant as void, is laid.

(B) The Written Statements:

3.1. All the Three Defendants have filed separate Written Statements. Th