THANGAMANI Vs. NATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants. THEy lost their case in both the Courts below. THE suit relates to a land, 10.78 acres in two survey numbers. It originally belonged to one Madanagopal Naidu. THE two defendants were tenants under him. THE five plaintiffs purchased the land from Mandanagopal. At the time of sale there was standing casuarina trees. THE plaintiffs filed two suits (may be because of two survey numbers, two suits) on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali for their half share in the standing casuarina trees. Later on the suits were compromised as per which the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a sale agreement Ex A1 dated 10 5-1977. According to this the defendants Agreed to purchase and the plaintiffs agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 63,000. On the date of agreement the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 3,000 by way of advance. As regards the balance of Rs. 60,000 it was stipulated that the defendants shall pay it in three equal instalments of Rs. 20,000 and the first instalment of Rs. 20,000 shall be paid on or before 30-9-1977 and the second instalment of Rs. 20,000 has to be paid by 30 11978 and thereupon the defendants shall obtain from the plaintiffs a sale deed on stamp papers. THE third instalment of Rs. 20,000 was to be paid on or before 10-5-1975 and then they should get the sale deed registered. It was further stipulated that in default of payment of the first instalment the defendants shall pay to plaintiffs a further sum of Rs. 3,000 before the second instalment becomes due and in default in payment of second instalment and getting sale deed signed on stamp papers the defendants should pay the plaintiffs damages for use and occupation of the properties and surrender possession. In case the plaintiffs commit default on their part (it is rather curiously stipulated that) they should pay back twice the amount received by them and execute a registered sale deed. It is further stated in the agreement that the defendants are allowed to continue in possession of the lands along with the standing casuarina trees.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed the suit alleging that the defendants failed to perform their part of the agreement and therefore they are entitled to take possession from the defendants with past and future mesne profits.

(3.) PER contra Mr. R. Sundaravaradan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs contends that no doubt the defendants were cultivating tenants but in the suits filed against them the parties compromised the disputes between them and in pursuance of that compromise an agreement of sale Ex.A1 was entered into and therein the respective rights and obligations of the parties as regards possession also have been stated and thus they have substituted themselves a new position of relationship of seller and purchaser between them for their old position of landlord and tenant relationship and therefore from the date of the said agreement the defendants were no longer tenants and their possession is referable to the agreement and in their capacity as purchasers and not as tenants and consequently it is not open to them to claim any rights under the cultivating tenants protection Act. Mr. R. Sundaravaradan further submits that it is the case of surrender of possession to the plaintiffs and then the plaintiffs permitting the defendants to continue their possession as per the terms of the new agreement and it is not a case of contracting out of the statutory right or waiving by the defendants.