IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to Sell – Protection provided under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is only a shield, and can only be resorted to as a right of defence – A person who is deemed to be in unlawful occupation of property, cannot seek relief of Specific Performance.

JUDGMENT (COMMON)

The appellants in A.S.No.674 of 2017 are the defendants 2 to 4/ legal heirs of deceased original defendant Murugan in the suit in O.S.No. 309 of 2006. The appellants in A.S.Nos. 357 & 647 of 2018 are the defendants 5 and 6 in the suit in O.S.No. 309 of 2006 and they are the purchasers of the suit property pending proceedings. All these Appeal Suits have been filed challenging the findings given by the trial judge in the suit filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.309 of 2006 on the file of Addl. District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.

3. Before the trial court, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of specific performance directing the original defendant Murugan to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement dated 30.04.2006 entered between them in respect of suit property as prescribed in the suit schedule property with alternative remedy of refund of advance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- as per the terms of agreement. When the original defendant Murugan alive, he filed a written statement and thereafter, he died and his legal heirs, defendants 2 to 4 were impleaded. His wife, 2nd defendant filed an additional written statement. Subsequently, the defendants 5 and 6 were impleaded as they were said to be purchasers of the suit property pending litigation by the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant submitted that after death of her husband, she came to enter an agreement with the plaintiff as well as one Govindan. Before that, Murugan, his brother and his sisters created a mortgage deed jointly with the third party. During his life time, original defendant/her husband sold the property to Govindan/5th defendant but she was not aware of the other transaction, however, the plaintiff was originally inducted as tenant of the suit property. Therefore, her husband Murugan demanded rent, but the plaintiff has not paid the rent even after his demise. So, to escape from his liability to pay the rent the present vexatious suit was filed. However, she is ready to pay advance amount paid by the plaintiff said to have been received by her husband. The purchasers 5th and 6th defendants submitted that they are bonafide purchasers of the property from Murugan/original defendant for a valid consideration. After the purchase, they intimated to the plaintiff, who is a tenant in the property calling upon him to pay monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- per month, but he has not paid the rent to them. Hence, the R.C.O.P. petition was filed. Even prior to the purchase, Govindan/5th defendant inspected the property and during his visit, the plaintiff has not raised any objections. So, he was aware of the purchase made by him, but refused to pay the rent. Hence, he has initiated R.C.O.P. proceedings. Moreover, the 5th defendant is the first Agreement holder of the suit property and the alleged agreement relied on by the plaintiff is the second agreement and the same will not supersede his agreement. If really, any such second agreement, the 2nd defendant alone bound to pay advance amount, thereby he contended that the suit is vexatious one. The purchasers, the 5th defendant purchased an extent of 342 sq.ft. of undivided share and 6th defendant purchased an extent of 80 sq.ft. for a valid consideration, wherein, he is running a tea stall. The purchasers have also contended that the alleged suit agreement was not found in encumbrance. So, as a bonafide purchasers, they have purchased the property from the defendant Murugan for a valid consideration.

4. Both parties have adduced their oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. Issues were framed. On considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial judge finally held that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance as he proved his readiness and willingness