JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent judgments in

A.S.No.35 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai and

O.S.No.976 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai.

2.The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.976 of 2013 for the following reliefs a) for declaring the registered lease deed dated 30.03.2007 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants is null and void, in- executable and inoperative under law; a (i) for directing the defendants to vacate the suit property and hand over the keys thereof with vacant possession; b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way altering or changing the character of the suit property and c) for costs.

3.The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the plaintiffs are the trustees of Thirupparankundram Arumuga Nainar Trust. They had leased out the suit property to the defendants under a registered lease agreement dated 30.03.2007. The recital of the lease deed shows that the plaintiffs have leased out the suit property to the defendants in their individual capacity and not as trustees of the plaintiffs' Trust. The plaintiffs filed Trust O.P.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court, Madurai, as trustees of Thirupparankundram Arumuga Nainar Trust seeking permission to sell the suit property in favour of the first defendant, S.Bhawarlal, his wife, B.Kamaladevi and his son, S.B.Rajkuar. The petition was allowed on 04.08.2010 directing sale price to be deposited within a period of two months. The two months period expired on 04.10.2010. The sale price was not deposited within the time fixed by the Court. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1038 of 2012 for cancelling the order passed in Trust

O.P.No.2 of 2009.

4.After contest, the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, allowed the petition and cancelled the order passed in Trust O.P.No.2 of 2009 on 04.08.2010. One third party, R.Gopalakrishnan, filed CRP.(MD) No.398 of 2011 before this Court challenging the order passed in Trust O.P.No.2 of 2009. This Court, while disposing of CRP(MD) No.398 of 2011, held that without making any public notice and without giving any opportunity to third parties, who are willing to purchase the properties, without mentioning the private negotiation entered into between the trustees with the first defendant, his wife and his son the proposed sale is not legal and thus, set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, in Trust O.P.No.2 of 2009. It was finally decided by this Court that whatever transactions the plaintiffs had with the first defendant, his wife and his son are all invalid under law.

5.The lease deed dated 30.03.2007 entered into between the plaintiffs in their individual capacity and the defendants, is not only invalid under law but also totally void lease deed under law. In paragraph No.15 of the order made in CRP. (MD) No.398 of 2011, this Court commented that “those, who are willing to purchase by private negotiations can also bid at the public auction and why would they feel shy or be deterred from bidding at public auction. Further, the sale by private negotiations will not be visible to the public eye and may even give rise to public suspicion unless there are special reasons to justify doing so”. For the same reasons, the registered lease deed dated 30.03.2007 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants is not valid under law. Therefore, on the basis of the lease deed dated 30.03.2007, the defendants cannot claim any relief for the reason that it becomes non-est under law and in-executable. The defendants have no option except to vacate the leased property and hand over the same to the plaintiffs by receiving the remaining advance amount of Rs.7,92,500/-, after deducting the rent amount payable by the defendants with the end of 31.10.2013.

6.Defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.642 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Di