The court clarified the enforceability of sale agreements, the protection of subsequent purchasers under Section 19-b of the Specific Relief Act, and the refund of advance amounts.

JUDGMENT

A.A. Nakkiran, J.

1. The unsuccessful Plaintiffs in O.S.No.2 of 2011, on the file of the II Additional District Sessions Court, Vellore at Ranipet, have filed this Appeal Suit, against the Judgement and Decree, dated, 16.04.2015, made therein.

2. The facts in brief, which are leading to filing of this appeal and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-

a. The Plaintiffs are the Appellants. The suit in O.S.No.96 of 2009, was originally filed, before the District Court at Vellore, by the Appellants against the Respondents 1 to 6 herein/ Respondents 1 to 6, seeking a judgement and decree, directing the Respondents 1 to 3, to execute a registered sale deed, after receiving the balance sale consideration from the Plaintiffs, along with the Respondents 4 and 5 or in the alternative, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 and 6 to refund the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and for permanent injunction and costs. Later, it was renumbered as O.S.No.2 of 2011 and taken on the file of the II Additional and District Sessions Court, Vellore at Ranipet.

b. During the pendency of the suit, since the 1st Defendant died on 02.08.2010, the 7th Respondent herein was impleaded as the 7th Defendant, as his legal heir in the said suit, on 10.09.2014. The 5th Defendant also died on 30.10.2014 and hence, the Respondents 8 to 12 herein were brought on record as the Respondents 8 to 12, as the legal heirs of the 5th Defendant, on 24.11.2014. Subsequently, the plaint was amended, seeking a judgement and decree, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 and 7, to execute a registered sale deed, after receiving the balance sale consideration from the Plaintiffs, along with the Respondents 4 and 8 to 12 and deliver possession of the suit property to the Plaintiffs or in the alternative, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 and 6 and 7 to refund the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and for permanent injunction and costs.

c. The Schedule of properties is consisting of two items, measuring each 4.17 acres in TS.No.12 and 3.80 acres in TS.No.13, situated at Walajah Village, Vellore District. The case of the Plaintiffs, as per the plaint, is that the Respondents 1 to 3, who are co-sharers of the suit property. leased out the same on 25.02.1999, in favour of the 6th Defendant for a period of 21 years on rental basis and the lease period was upto the year 2020. The Respondents 1 to 3, nominating the 6th Defendant as their agent, offered to sell the suit property to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs along with one C.Nageswara Rao jointly entered into a sale agreement, dated 18.08.2004 with the Respondents 1 to 3, for purchase of the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.51,80,500/- and an earnest money deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid.

d. The Plaintiffs further stated that there are other essential clauses of contract stipulated in the sale agreement, viz. (1) on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.31,80,500/- within a period of four months, the vendors shall put the purchasers in possession of the suit property so as to allow them to develop the property or (ii) on receipt of 50% of sale price, i.e. Rs.25,90.250/- within four months, the vendors shall execute a Power of Attorney in favour of the purchasers for development of the suit properties, (iii) the vendors thereafter shall receive the balance of 50% sale price within five months and put them in possession of the property and execute a registered sale deed and (iv) failure on the part of the purchasers entails in forfeiture of EMD, etc.

e. It is stated by the Plaintiffs that since one of the purchasers, C.Nageswara Rao relinquished his interest in the purchase of the suit property, they alone got interest in the sale agreement in respect of the suit property and that on 15.12.2004, the Plaintiffs paid a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the 6th Defendant, authorised by the vendors and the same was endorsed by h