BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 22.04.2025 DELIVERED ON : 13.05.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN S.A.(MD).No.95 of 2006

1.Sulaiha Beevi (Died)

(Memo dated 21.10.2024 presented before this Court on 24.10.2024 stating that the first appellant died. Memo is recorded. The 6^th appellant who is already on record is recorded as LR of the deceased 1^st appellant.)

2.Mymoon Beevi

3.Abdul Khader

4.Noorjahan

5.Shahul Hameed

6.Jaithoon Beevi ... Appellants/Respondents 2 to 7/Plaintiffs Vs.

1.Visalakshi ... Respondent/Appellant/6^th Defendant.

2.Shenbagavalli

3.Rangesh

4.Jayalakshmi

5.Sudha ... Respondents/Respondents 8 to 12/

Defendants 2 to 5 PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 02.09.2005 rendered in A.S.No.94 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai, reversing the decree and the Judgment dated 10.04.2002 rendered in O.S.No.84 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruppattur.

For Appellants : Mr.P.Yasmin Begum For Respondents : Mr.S.Raja Sekaran for R1 (No Appearance)

No Appearance for R2 to R5 Advocate Commissioner: Mr.G.Manikandan

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated

02.09.2005 rendered in A.S.No.94 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai, reversing the decree and the Judgment dated 10.04.2002 rendered in O.S.No.84 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruppattur.

2.The averments in the plaint:

The suit property belongs to the first defendant. He approached the plaintiff for selling the property. There was mutual agreement between the parties to purchase the property for Rs.12,000/-. Agreement was entered on 22.11.1989. On the same day itself Rs.4,000/- was paid as advance. The first defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff within a period of 4 months from the date of agreement after receiving the balance amount. Later the first defendant received another some of Rs.1,000/- on 25.01.1990. The first plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In spite of repeated demand the first defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. So the first plaintiff issued a notice dated 06.03.1990 demanding execution of sale deed.

3.The first defendant received the notice. But, there was no reply.

So the suit is laid for specific performance of contract. During the pendency of the suit, it was learnt that the property was sold to the 6^th defendant by the defendants 1 to 5. The 6^th defendant is arrayed as a party. Plaint was amended.

4.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the third defendant:

The agreement dated 22.11.1989 is denied as false. The first defendant is now dead. The suit properties are the ancestral property of the defendant. So all the legal heirs of the deceased first respondents are having share in the property. The first plaintiff approached the deceased first defendant for constructing shops for renting out. That was the reason for the sale agreement. Moreover the property situated in Mela Radha Veethi, Sowmiya Narayana Perumal Kovil. Later it was came to know that the first plaintiff, against the agreement intended to construct mosque. So the first defendant cancelled the agreement. Apart from that it was agreed that time must be treated as essence of the contract.

5.To the knowledge of the first plaintiff the property was sold to

6^th defendant for valid consideration. She put up construction in the property for residence. At that time the plaintiff did not make any objections. The suit itself is barred by limitation.

6.The statement of the 6^th defendant is that only after receiving the summons from the Court the 6^th defendant came to know that suit is filed in respect of the suit property. The possession of the 6^th defendant is known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not make any objections. To harass the 6^th defendant the suit is filed. To harass the 6^th defend