A Sale Agreement does not constitute property interest until a Sale Deed is executed; hence, it is not void due to alleged statutory prohibitions against alienation.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendants 4 and 5 are the appellants herein. The

1^st respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 23.06.1983 with alternative prayer for recovery of damages. The said suit was decreed by granting primary relief of specific performance. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 4 and 5 have come before this Court.

Plaint Averments:-

2. According to the 1^st respondent/plaintiff, the suit Flat was allotted to the 1^st defendant by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The defendants 2 and 3 are the wife and son of 1^st defendant. The appellants/defendants 4 and 5 are the daughter and son-in-law of the 1^st defendant. It was stated by the plaintiff that the 1^st defendant represented to him that the suit Flat was allotted to him by Tamil Nadu Housing Board and he had made a total payment of Rs.32,461/- towards portion of the sale consideration and remaining amount had to be paid in monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.923/- for the next 7 years. It was further stated that the 1^st defendant agreed to execute a Sale Agreement in favour of plaintiff on an understanding that the entire amount paid by the 1^st defendant to Housing Board shall be repaid by the plaintiff to

1^st defendant at once and balance amount shall be paid by way of monthly installments by the plaintiff to the Housing Board directly and after payment of all instalments, the Housing Board would execute a Sale Deed in favour of the 1^st defendant and thereafter, the 1^st defendant should execute a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff agreed for the said course, a Sale Agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 on 23.06.1983.

3. It was also stated that the 1^st defendant was the allottee of the Housing Board and the property should be treated as his self-acquired property. However, by way of abandon caution, the defendants 2 and 3 were added as signatories in the Sale Agreement. As per the terms of the Sale Agreement, the plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs.32,461/- to the 1^st defendant by way of cheque, dated 23.06.1983. He also paid the entire balance sale consideration by way of monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.923/- for the next 7 years. It was also stated that on the date of agreement itself, the 1^st defendant executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff and put him in possession of the property. Though the plaintiff had completed payment of entire amount due to the Board by June-1992, the 1^st defendant failed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the meantime, the 4^th defendant/daughter of 1^st defendant sent a communication to Canara Bank, a tenant inducted by the plaintiff in the suit property claiming right over the same. Then only, the plaintiff acquired knowledge about the Sale Deed executed by Housing Board in favour of 1^st defendant and the subsequent Settlement Deed executed by 1^st defendant in favour of 4^th defendant, his daughter. Since the defendants failed to act as per the terms of Sale Agreement, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for Specific Performance of the Agreement. Alternatively, the plaintiff also sought for recovery of the amount paid by him and also the amount spent by him by way of various amenities to the suit property.

4. The defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Pending suit, the defendants 1 and 2 also died. The defendants 3 and 4 are their legal representatives, already on record. The defendants 4 and 5 alone filed written statement and resisted the suit. According to them, the Suit Sale Agreement was not a legally enforceable one as the same wa