An agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on property; subsequent deeds must be joined in a suit for title claim.

JUDGMENT :

N. MALA, J.

The 5th defendant in the suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is filed against the confirming judgment of the lower appellate court decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

2.The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the trial court.

Gist of the Plaint and Amended Plaint:

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The defendants 1 & 2 were the original owner's of the suit property having purchased the same under registered sale Deed dated 18.01.1996. The defendants 1 & 2 entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 04.06.1997 for sale of the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-, received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as advance and thereafter received a further sum of Rs.5,000/- as advance. As defendant's failed to execute the sale Deed in terms of the sale Agreement, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.211 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Puducherry, for specific performance. The defendant's 1 & 2 executed the sale Deed on 17.08.1999 in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter the suit was dismissed as not pressed on 29.10.1999. According to the plaintiff, he was put in possession of the suit property and the Patta was also transferred in his name. The plaintiff states that while the plaintiff tried to take steps to secure the property by putting up a fence, the 3rd defendant objected to the same. The matter was taken to the police station and it was then that the plaintiff came to know that the 1st and 2nd defendants with a view to defraud the plaintiff, in collusion with the 3rd defendant, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 3rd defendant on 04.06.1998, for sale of the property and the 3rd defendant in pursuance of the Power of Attorney executed a sale Deed in favour of the 4th defendant on 16.07.1998. The 4th defendant thereafter sold the property to the 5th defendant on 05.03.2007. The plaintiff states that all the transactions of the defendant's were fraudulent, sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff left with no other option was hence constrained to file the suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant's from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. The defendant's filed separate written statement. The 1st and 2nd defendant filed a common written statement and so also defendants 3 & 4. The 5th defendant filed a separate written statement.

5. The gist of the defendant's written statements are as follows:

The defendant's 1 & 2 filed a written statement denying generally all the averments made in the plaint. The defendant's 3, 4 & 5 denied the plaintiff's contention that the defendant's 1 & 2 colluded with the 3rd defendant and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 3rd defendant to thwart the plaintiff's efforts to enforce the agreement of sale in his favour. The defendant's further denied the plaintiff's possession of the suit properties. According to the defendant's, it was the plaintiff who had colluded with the defendant's 1 & 2 and created the alleged suit Agreement and maneuvered to obtain the judgment and decree in O.S.No.211 of 1999. According to the defendant's the alleged sale Agreement was a fraudulent document purposely manipulated by the plaintiff in collusion with the 1st and 2nd defendant to defeat the lawful right, title and interest of the defendant's 3, 4 & 5. The 5th defendant apart from reiterating the contentions of the