PERIASAMI GOUNDER Vs. CHINNARAJ GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal is at the instance of defendants 3 and 4 in a suit for specific performance and injunction filed by the first respondent herein.

(2.) THE case of first respondent (plaintiff) is that the suit property was sold originally by the father of defendants 1 and 2 to his father in 1933 for a sum of Rs.500 and since then, it has been in the possession of his father and later himself. According to him, as defendants 1 and 2 were trying to disturb his possession he entered into an agreement in 1961 with the first defendant for purchasing the property for a sum of Rs.4,000 and peace prevailed for some time thereafter. Again, defendants 1 and 2 started giving troubles which led to another agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff by defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.A.1 dated 1.1.1974. At that time the consideration was fixed at Rs.5,000 and a sum of Rs.500 was paid in advance. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 3.11.1974 a sale deed was executed on stamp papers by defendants land 2 after receiving the sum of Rs.4, being the balance of consideration. THE said document is marked as Ex.A. 2. THEreafter, defendants 1 and 2 refused to register the document and the plaintiff approached the court for specific performance and injunction on the ground that he was throughout in possession.

(3.) IT must be noted that this plea was not raised by the appellants in the Courts below. If they had raised it, first respondent (plaintiff) would have let in sufficient evidence to prove that there was no fault on his part in failing to get exhibit A.2 registered. Even otherwise, the evidence on record shows that the first and second defendants refused to register exhibit A.1 and that is why the first respondent had to resort to the remedy of filing the suit for specific performance. Thus, the plea cannot be raised as a pure question of law as it has to depend upon the facts to be established in the case.