AS No.239 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10-02-2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

AS No.239 of 2017

And

CMP No.9526 of 2017

1.Iliyash (Died)

2.Noorunnisa,

W/o.Late Iliyash

3.Asker Ahamed,

S/o.Late Iliyash

4.Emthiyas Ahamed,

S/o.Late Iliyash

5.Shabrin Banu,

D/o.Late Iliyash

(Appellants 2 to 5 brought on record

as LRs of the deceased first appellant

viz., Iliyash vide order of Court dated

05.09.2022 made in CMP Nos.6586,

6596 and 6599 of 2020 in AS No.239

of 2017)

.. Appellants

1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No.239 of 2017

vs.

1.Deepan Chakravarthi

2.Mithoon Chakravarthi

3.Priyanka

.. Respondents

PRAYER : This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure against the decree and judgment dated 15.03.2017 made in OS

No.72 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge,

Dharmapuri.

For Appellants : Mr.T.M.Vijay for

Mr.S.Doraisamy

For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthusamy

J U D G M E N T

The present Appeal Suit has been instituted against the

judgment and decree dated 15.03.2017 passed in OS No.72 of 2015 on the

file of the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.

2/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No.239 of 2017

2. The first appellant is the defendant and the respondents are

the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted the suit for

recovery of money of Rs.22 lakhs with interest and for permanent

injunction.

3. The plaint averments reveal that the suit properties belonged

to the first appellant-defendant and the first appellant-defendant had agreed

to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs' father Mr.A.T.Velayudham at the

rate of Rs.51 lakhs and the Sale Agreement was entered into between the

plaintiffs' father Mr.A.T.Velayudham and the first appellant-defendant on

26.11.2012.

4. The first appellant-defendant had received Rs.20 lakhs

towards advance. The time for Sale Deed was fixed as five months. As per

the terms and conditions of the Sale Agreement, Mr.A.T.Velayudham took

possession of the suit property and spent Rs.3 lakhs to promote the land for

the purpose of converting the same into Housing Plots with the concurrence

3/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No.239 of 2017

of the first appellant-defendant. Meanwhile, Mr.A.T.Velayudham died on

13.02.2014 in the motor accident.

5. The legalheirs of the said deceased Mr.A.T.Velayudham

were impleaded as plaintiffs. The plaintiffs approached the first appellant-

defendant to repay the balance amount of Rs.23 lakhs and the first

appellant-defendant repaid only a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the plaintiffs.

6. Since the first appellant-defendant postponed the repayment

of the balance amount, the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the suit for

recovery of money based on the Sale Agreement entered into between the

father of the plaintiffs and the first appellant-defendant.

7. The first appellant-defendant filed written statement denying

the plaint averments. The Sale Agreement was denied and the sale

consideration agreed between the parties were also denied. The possession

handed over to the original plaintiff Mr.A.T.Velayudham was also denied

4/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS No.239 of 2017

by the first appellant-defendant.

8. It is contended by the defendants 2 to 5 that the plaintiffs'

father had not paid Rs.20 lakhs and on 26.04.2013 itself, the Sale

Agreement got lapsed. The father of the plaintiffs Mr.A.T.Velayudham had

not acted upon as per the terms and conditions of the Sale Agreement and

no notice was sent to the first appellant-defendant. Thus the plaintiffs have

not taken any steps thereafter and thus the suit claim is to be rejected.

9. The Trial Court framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled fo