Failure to pay the entire sale consideration and the requirement of registration for protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2014 passed in OS.No.117 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.)

1. This appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2014 passed in OS.No.117 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee, thereby allowed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff is the respondent. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties plot No.47, 48, 49 were purchased by the plaintiff by the registered sale deed dated 17.04.2009 vide document No.2232 of 2009 from the power holder G.Selvakumar on behalf of his principal S.Senthil. Prior to the sale deed, one, P.Dharmaraj, a real estate businessman acted as power agent on behalf of his principals i.e. M/s.Alamelu and Gunasekaran who had executed power of attorney to deal with the properties admeasuring 41 cents out of 57 cents of land. The said 41 cents of land is part and parcel of the settlement deed in favour of the principals vide document No.9701 of 1989 and patta No.565. Thereafter, the power holder P.Dharmaraj along with other properties had formed layout in the name and style of Annai Nagar for the total extent of the property admeasuring 3.70 acres. The subject property plot Nos.47 to 49 are comprised in survey No.193/1A6. He had entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant. However, the defendant had committed defaults in payment of various instalments and no sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant by the said P.Dharmaraj. In fact, he caused notice on 05.04.2007 to get back the amount which was paid by the defendant. He had also given public notice in the daily newspaper 'Makkal Kural' on 24.05.2007. Therefore, the said agreement was unenforceable and the defendant cannot claim any right or title over the suit properties. Therefore, the said P.Dharmaraj had executed three different sale deeds in respect of plot No.47, 48 & 49 in favour of three different persons by the registered sale deeds. All the three purchasers had executed different power of attorney in favour of one, E.V.Saravanan to deal with the subject properties. In turn, the power holder had executed three different sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff's vendor. Thereafter, he had executed power of attorney in favour of Mr.Selvakumar and in turn, he had executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

3.1 The further case of the plaintiff is that taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from the month of July to Middle of October 2009, the defendant trespassed into the property and had put up two huts and also obtained electricity connection. In fact, the plaintiff filed writ petition before this Court in WP.No.8607 of 2010 for disconnection of electricity supply. Therefore, the plaintiff caused notice and filed the suit.

4. Resisting the same, the defendant filed written statement stating that the suit properties are in possession and enjoyment of the defendant. Though the plaintiff had purchased the suit property by way of the sale deed dated 17.04.2009, the plaintiff never had taken possession of the suit properties. Insofar as the suit property is concerned, the defendant had entered into an agreement for sale and agreed to pay the sale consideration by way of instalments. After completion of entire payments by instalments, the said Dharmaraj had handed over the possession of the suit properties and also promised to executed sale deeds. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit properties. At the time of purchase of the suit properties, the possession was not handed over to the plaintiff at any point of time. Therefore, the said Dharmaraj had no title over the property and the sale