The court emphasized the importance of proper service of summons and the legal consequences of a failed specific performance suit in determining possession rights.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer : This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure and Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules, for a judgment and decree against the defendants as follows : (i) to direct the defendants 1 to 14 herein to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property more-fully described in the schedule hereunder to the plaintiffs in its original form by removing all the constructions if any put up thereon, and in default permit the plaintiffs to remove all the super structures and constructions existing thereon and recover the cost of the same from the defendants; (b) to direct the defendants to pay costs of the suit.

The suit is filed for the relief of direction against the defendants 1 to 14 to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property by removing all the construction, if any, put up there on and in default, permit the plaintiffs to remove the superstructure and constructions and recover the costs of the same from the defendants and for costs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that, the part of the land to an extent of 10 grounds and 1700 sq.ft. in T.S.No.12, Block No.11, Puliyur Village, Egmore – Nungambakkam Taluk, morefully described in the schedule was owned by K.R.Sundararajan, husband of the second plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs and the 15th defendant. It was purchased under a sale deed dated 29.10.1950, from one P.Srinivasa Iyengar. K.R.Sundararajan and other owners of the adjacent lands appointed one P.K.Sowmyanarayanan, Advocate, as their agent to sell the properties in favour of the first defendant Society. The said power agent entered into an agreements of sale on 28.02.1978 and on 02.04.1978 with the first defendant Society for a consideration of Rs.1,15,200/-. Rs.40,200/- was paid as advance. In the sale agreement dated 02.04.1978, no amount was mentioned towards sale consideration and no advance was received by the plaintiffs and the 15th defendant’s father or his agent. It was mutually agreed that the sale price relating to the suit property would be fixed separately and the sale deeds relating to the extent of property in favour of the first defendant Society will be executed on receiving the entire sale consideration. The first defendant Society was unable to honour its commitment. The first defendant Society filed a suit in O.S. No.7732 of 1988, on the file of VII Assistant City Civil Court for the relief of specific performance directing the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed in favour of the first defendant Society, in respect of the suit property. The suit was dismissed on 08.09.2004 holding that the first defendant is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement. The first defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.360 of 2005, before the IIIrd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. That appeal was dismissed on 03.02.2006, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. First defendant failed to restore the possession of the suit property, which was taken surreptitiously and without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs. The defendants 2 to 14 claim to be the members of the first defendant Society are in illegal and unlawful possession. Since the 15th defendant, sister of the plaintiffs is not co-operating, she is shown as a defendant. Under these circumstances, the suit is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The case of the first defendant Society is that the first defendant Society already proved that the entire sale consideration was paid to the owner K.R.Sundararajan for the land measuring 24700 sq.ft. in T.S.No.12, Block No.11, Puliyur Village, Egmore – Nungambakkam Taluk. The plaintiffs refused to give the copy of the title deeds. Therefore, the suit in O.S. No.7732 of 1988 was filed for specific performance. The plaintiffs are bound by the terms and conditions in the original sale agreement, dated 28.02.1978. The entire sale consideration as per this agreement was paid. The sale agreement does not lapse by efflux of time