PAQUIRISAMY PILLAI DECEASED Vs. DR LOUIS PRAKASAM KANNAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises against the decree and judgment of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry dated 29.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.35 of 2004 confirming the Judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry dated 08.04.2004 in O.S.No.96 of 2002.

(2.) THE averments made in the plaint are as follows:- On 22.05.1978 the defendant entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the suit property for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.5000/- was paid. As per the sale agreement, it was agreed that the litigation was pending in respect of the suit property and if the defendant succeeds in the suit and becomes absolute owner of the same, he would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff receive the balance sale consideration within a period of three months from the date when the defendant becomes the absolute owner. THE plaintiff was a tenant in respect of the suit property and he was paying a rent of Rs.720/- per month, of which, he was paying 5/12 share in the rent to each of the defendant and his brother and 2/12 share to the sister Ratna Mary. In pursuance of the agreement, the plaintiff was paying rent for the suit property only to the defendant's brother Louis Sinnaya Arkiasamy and his sister Ratna Mary in respect of their respective shares from the date of the impugned sale agreement. But he did not pay the share of rent due to the defendant since then. THE defendant filed HRCOP No.63 of 1996 which was dismissed against which he preferred M.A.No.27 of 1997 which was also dismissed confirming the trial Court's order. THE defendant sent a notice informing that he has become absolute owner of the suit property in terms of the release deed dated 30.11.2001 executed by his elder brother and legal heirs of his sister Ratna Mary. Since the defendant gave a evasive reply and refused to execute sale deed, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for specific performance.

(3.) AT the time of admission of the above Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law arose for consideration: