The contract of sale by itself does not create any interest in immovable property, and the plaintiff, being only an agreement holder, did not have a subsisting right over the property to seek a declaration that the Sale Deed executed by the third defendant in favor of the fourth defendant is bad.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal suit has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur dated 26.04.2017 in O.S.No.20 of 013 and to decree the said suit as prayed for.)

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The plaintiff in OS No.20 of 2013 an audacious suit by an agreement holder for a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 27.08.2012 executed by the purchaser from the agreement vendor in favour of M/s.Micro Surgical Instrument Limited, rep. by its Director Mrs.Balamanimegalai, for an injunction against the fourth defendant from alienating the suit property and for a direction to the fifth Defendant viz. the Sub Registrar not to register any transaction concerning the suit property is on appeal challenging its dismissal.

2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the suit are as follows:

2.1. The plaintiff claims to have entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant on 19.01.2011 under Ex.A3. As per the said Agreement, the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.73,50,424/- and has also parted with a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards advance. It is also claimed that a further sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid on 25.02.2011 and the possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff. As per the terms of the agreement a period of 120 days was fixed for its performance.

2.2. On 18.11.2011, the first defendant Parvathi appointed the second defendant Mr.Saravana Kumar, as her power agent. Subsequently on 13.06.2012, the said Saravana Kumar, as the power agent of the first defendant, sold the suit property to one Praveen Kumar, the third defendant under a Sale Deed dated 13.06.2012 marked as Ex.A7. The purchaser viz. Praveen Kumar sold the property to M/s.Micro Surgical Instrument Limited, on 27.08.2012. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 06.09.2012 requiring the first defendant to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute a Sale Deed.

2.3.A reply was sent by the second defendant the Power Agent denying knowledge of the agreement. It was also stated therein that as Power Agent appointed on 18.11.2011, he had found a prospective buyer and had executed the Sale Deed in favour of the prospective buyer. Thereafter the plaintiff came up with the suit with the above prayers.

3. The suit was resisted by all the defendants. The first defendant contended that the Suit Agreement dated 19.01.2011 was not intended to be an agreement of sale that was executed only as a security for a loan transaction. It was also claimed that the signature of the first defendant was taken in blank papers and an agreement has been created thereon.

3.1. The second defendant filed a written statement reiterating the allegations contained in his reply notice denying knowledge of the agreement dated 19.01.2011 and contending that he was appointed as a power agent only on 18.11.2011 by the first defendant and he had acted as per the power of attorney document. It was also pointed out that he had entered into a registered agreement of sale on 21.11.2011 with the third defendant and executed a sale deed on 13.06.2012 in favour of the third defendant.

3.2. The third defendant resisted the suit contending that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. He also added that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated.

3.3. The fourth defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit against the fourth defendant itself is not maintainable, since the property was not purchased by her in her individual capacity. It was pointed out that the property was purchased by the Company called M/s.Micro Surgical Instrument Limited, represented by her as the Director. Therefore, according to her, the suit as framed is not maintainable. She had also taken the other pleas that are open to a