SAROJAMMAL, SINCE DEAD BY L.RS. (CHANDRAKALA AND OTHERS) Vs. SMT. MUTHYALAMMA, WIFE OF LATE SRI GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU, @ GOVINDASWAMY, SINCE DEAD BY L.RS. (SRI KRISHNAMURTHY @ MURTHY, SON OF LATE GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU @ GOVINDASWAMY, SMT. SULOCHANA, D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.The case of the Plaintiff in brief is that, Govindaswamy Naidu was the owner of the suit property, agreed to sell the same in her favour for Rs. 10,000/ -, received the agreed consideration amount and executed the agreement dated 21.03.1979, possession of the property was delivered even prior to the agreement and the sale deed was assured to be executed within three months on obtaining the ULC permission, but went on postponing the execution of sale deed. Govindaswamy Naidu died on 15.05.1980. The Defendants were requested to execute the sale deed and even a notice dated 13.02.1984 was issued, to which an untenable reply dated 24.02.1984 was got sent and hence, the suit was filed.

(2.) THE Defendants filed written statement on 25.03.1986 contending that, to make wrongful gain and to deprive the right of the Defendants, false suit has been filed. The execution of the agreement to sell, payment of the sale consideration amount and delivery of possession of suit property were denied. It was stated that, Plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 515/1984 for permanent injunction and that, the 1st Defendant filed O.S. No. 552/1985 against the Plaintiff in respect of the suit: property and an order of temporary injunction was granted. The obligation to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property was denied and so also the averments made in the plaint. It was contended that, after the death of Govindaswamy Naidu, Defendants are in possession of the suit property. It was also contended that, the suit is bad for non -joinder of all the legal heirs of deceased Govindaswamy Naidu. Additional written statement was filed by the 3rd Defendant on 31.01.1996, wherein, it was contended that, there is mis -description of the property in the plaint schedule and that the suit is vexatious. The 1st Defendant died on 03.10.1999. Application to bring the L.Rs on record was not filed.

(3.) THE L.Rs of the Plaintiff filed I. As No. 1, 2 and 3 of 2005, seeking permission to bring the L Rs of deceased 1st Respondent/1st Defendant on record. The said applications were allowed by an order dated 08.06.2006. Respondents 1(a) to 1(c) have been brought on record of the appeal pursuant to the said order.