BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.07.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR S.A.No.1806 of 2002 K.Sampath Rangan ... Appellant -vs-

1.Immanuvel 2.Arokiasamy

3.Arul Udaiyar

4.Panneerselvam

5.Antonysamy

6.Arokiasamy @ Durairaj

7.Lourdusamy ... Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 31.08.2001, passed in A.S.No.3 of 2001 on the file of Sub-Court, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 29.10.1997, passed in O.S.No.480 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thanjavur.

For Appellant : Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thambi for Mr.M.Sudhakar For Respondent 1 : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondent 2 : Mr.A.Senthilkumar For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.D.Srinivasaraghavan For Respondent 7 : Mr.S.Muniyandi Respondents 5 & 6 : Dismissed

JUDGMENT

The seventh defendant in the suit is the appellant. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of suit sale agreement, dated 11.01.1991, entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4. The suit was decreed by the trial Court by directing the defendants 1 to 6 to execute the sale deed, as prayed for. Aggrieved by the silence in the decree with regard to a direction to seventh defendant to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.64 of 1999 on the file of Sub-Court, Thanjavur. Aggrieved by the decree granted for specific performance, the seventh defendant filed A.S.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the same Court i.e., Sub-Court, Thanjavur. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the seventh defendant and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff directing the seventh defendant to join with other defendants for execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the seventh defendant has come by way of this Second Appeal.

2. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit property belonged to defendants 4 to 6. They entered into an agreement with defendants 1 to 3 for sale of the suit property on 30.01.1988. The defendants 1 to 3 were given possession of the property and they were also given power to enter into a sale agreement with third parties and also to receive advance. The first defendant approached the plaintiff and entered into a sale agreement on 11.01.1991 for sale of the suit property, namely, 2 plots for a value of Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiff paid advance of Rs.18,000/- on the date of agreement and agreed to pay the balance amount at the time of registration. The plaintiff also claimed that possession was handed over to him on the date of agreement. It was further claimed that in spite of repeated demands, the defendants evaded completion of the suit sale transaction. The plaintiff also acquired knowledge about the agreement between the seventh defendant and the defendants 1 to 6 with regard to the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 11.01.1991.

3. The appellant/seventh defendant filed a written statement and denied the suit sale agreement as a concocted document. He also claimed that he was the bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value without notice of suit sale agreement.

4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and

6 documents were marked on his side as Exs.A-1 to A-6. The first and the sixth defendants were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 and the seventh defendant was examined as D.W.3. On behalf of the defendants, 13 documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-13.

5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the suit sale agreement was a genuine document. The trial Court also rendered a finding that the seventh defendant was not a bonafide purchaser for value and consequently decreed the suit. However, the decree drafted by the trial Court was silent about the seventh defendant. The directi