BHARATHI AMMAL Vs. JAYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal in S.A. No.183 of 1990 arises out of A.S.No.50 of 1989 on the file of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, which was against the decision of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge at Pondicherry in O.S.No.336 of 1981.

(2.) THE second appeal in S.A.No.184 of1990 arises out of A.S.No.48 of 1989 on the file of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, and it was against the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge in O.S.No.289 of 1981.

(3.) THE defendant came forward with a defence as follows: Manjini Naicker entered into an agreement with the defendant on 9.12.1980. THE sale price was fixed at Rs.24,000. He received Rs.12,000 on the date of the agreement as earnest money. As per the terms of the agreement, Manjini Naicker was to obtain necessary permission from the Competent Authority to register the sale deed and to produce nil encumbrance certificate and to deliver vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property to the defendant within two years. THE agreement was duly registered on 8.1.1981. On 26.1.1981 Manjini Naicker issued a vexatious notice stating that he and his sons executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.20,000 and it was to be registered. THE defendant sent a suitable reply. THE plaintiff fraudulently got the sale deed registered in her favour on 3.2.1981 and prior to such registration, she did not obtain permission from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and encumbrance certificate till the date of execution of the sale deed. THE sale effected by Manjini Naicker in favour of the plaintiff was not valid and binding on the defendant. THE suit filed by the plaintiff was therefore to be dismissed.