IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

DATED: 14.3.2012

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

A.S.No.921 of 1997

and Tr.A.S.406 of 2008

1.Somasundaram

.... Appellant in

A.S.No.921 of 1997

permitted the first appellant

to continue the proceedings

in A.S.No.921 of 1997 as

sole appellant, assignee of

the rights under the agreement dated 24.2.89

vide order dt.4.1.08 made in C.M.P.No.3178/07

1.K.Somasundaram

2.P.Rajagopal

... Appellants in

A.S.No.406 of 2008

vs.

1.P.Pavayee

2.R.P.Saradha

... Respondents in both

the appeals

Appeals against the common judgement and decrees dated

11.7.1997 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, in

O.S.Nos.311 of 1993 and 573 of 1996.

For appellants

:: Mr.T.V.Ramanujam,Sr.counsel for

M/s.M.Narayanaswamy

For Respondents :: Mr.R.Asokan for

M/s.N.Damodaran

COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals are focussed by the plaintiffs in the suits,

as against the common judgement and decrees dated 11.7.1997 passed

by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, in O.S.Nos.311 of 1993

and 573 of 1996, which were for specific performance of an agreement

to sell and for obtaining permanent injunction.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to

hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before

the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts

absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal

would run thus:

A.S.No.921 of 1997:

(a) The appellants herein, as plaintiffs, filed the suit

O.S.No.311 of 1993 for specific performance based on the agreement

to sell-Ex.A1 dated 24.2.1989, which emerged between the plaintiffs

and the defendants, whereby, the latter agreed to sell in favour of

the former the suit property for a total sale consideration to be

calculated at the rate of Rs.6,00,000.00 per acre. Under the said

agreement, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by the former to the

latter. The period of performance was 15 months. Inasmuch as there

was no performance of the agreement to sell on the part of the

defendants, after issuing pre-suit notice and getting reply, the

suit O.S.No.311 of 1993 was filed with the following prayer:

"to pass a judgement and decree;

a) directing the defendants to execute the sale

deed at the costs of plaintiffs, in favour of the

plaintiffs for Rs.12,24,000/- receiving the balance of

Rs.10,24,000/-

(apart

from

the

advance

of

Rs.2,00,000/- already paid) and to do all acts

necessary to recognise and confirm the possession of

the suit property by the plaintiffs and to direct the

defendants, if necessary, to deliver possession of the

suit property to the plaintiffs.

b) and in default of such compliance by the

defendant the Honourable Court may be pleased to

execute a registered conveyance of the suit property

in favour of the plaintiff at the costs of the

plaintiffs.

Alternatively

a) directing the defendants to pay the

plaintiffs the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with future

interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.2,00,000/-

from the date of suit till the date of payment and

costs and further create a charge over the suit

property for the due payment of the aforesaid amount

with future interest at 18% percent per annum payment

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

of the aforesaid amount with future interest at the

rate of 18% percent and costs."

(b) Tr. A.S.No.406 of 2008 is focussed as against the same

judgement and decree dated 11.7.1997 passed by the Principal

Subordinate Judge, Erode, in O.S.No.573 of 1996, which was one for

obtaining permanent injunction in respect of the suit property on

the ground that under Ex.A1-the agreement to sell dated 24.2.89, the

plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit property; however, the

defendants were trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of t