IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.12.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR S.A.No.862 of 2017 and CMP.No.21703 of 2017

1.J.Sukumar (Died)

2.J.Ganesamurthy

3.J.Srinivasan

4.J.S.Rajeswari ...Appellants (A1-died, A4 brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased A1 vide Court order dated 19.04.2022 made in CMP.No.5251/2022 in S.A.No.862/2017)

Vs.

K.S.P.Pandian (Deceased)

1.P.Gnanaselvi

2.Venkatasubramanian

3.Subbiah

4.Sundaram

5.Suresh

6.Subash ... Respondents Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.77 of 2010 by the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.01.2011 reversing the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.4005 of 1996, dated 14.07.2009 by the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Saravanakumar for Mr.I.Abrar MD. Abdullah For Respondents : Mr.K.Ravi Senior Counsel for M/s.Rugan and Arya

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit for specific performance are the appellants. The suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court was reversed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come up with this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this Second Appeal as per their ranking in the suit.

3. According to the plaintiffs, they were in occupation of agreement mentioned property as a tenant. Later on plaintiffs, agreed to purchase the said property for a sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and agreement was entered on 11.02.1985 and on the date of agreement an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs. As per the terms of agreement the defendants agreed to treat the possession of the plaintiffs as the one under agreement. The defendants also agreed to adjust the rental advance of Rs.40,000/- towards the balance sale consideration. It was also agreed in the agreement that necessary permission from the Court shall be obtained for selling the agreement mentioned property to the plaintiffs in sofar as the share of minor defendants 4 to 7. The time fixed for performance was 11.05.1986. The plaintiffs issued a notice on 12.08.1985 reminding the defendants their obligation under the agreement. The defendants issued a reply on 16.09.1985 stating that as per terms of agreement, the plaintiffs had to pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendants on 11.05.1985 and the same was not paid. Subsequently, the plaintiffs paid further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.02.1986 and entered into another agreement incorporating the new terms under Ex.A12. The time fixed for performance was six months from the date of 2^nd agreement entered on 10.02.1986. As the defendants failed to perform their part of contract the plaintiffs issued a lawyer's notice on 31.03.1987. The defendants filed Rent Control proceedings against the plaintiffs seeking their eviction. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit seeking specific performance of the sale agreement expressing their willingness and readiness for paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,60,000/-.

4. The defendants filed their written statement and additional written statement stating that on the date of execution of rental agreement the defendants 3 to 7 were minors. It was further averred by the defendants that the agreement mentioned property originally belonged to the first defendant and he executed a settlement deed on 13.07.1977 granting life estate in favour of the second defendant with vested remainder to the defendants 3 to 7, in respect of a portion of the property. Again the first defendant executed another settlement deed on 14.07.1977 settling remaining portion of the property to the defendants 3 to 6. Therefore, the first defendant had no right over the agreement mentioned property on the date of agreement. The second defendant had only life estate in respect of a por