M KUMARASWAMY Vs. NANJAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S.No.1436 of 1990, who are also the defendants 4, 13 to 16 in O.S.No.906 of 1989, are the appellants.

(2.) MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar was the owner of the suit property and according to the first respondent herein, the said MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar entered into an agreement of sale on 22.8.1973 with him agreeing to sell the suit property and as the said MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar failed to execute the sale deed as per the agreement of sale, the first respondent filed O.S.No.466 of 1975 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 22.8.1973 impleading MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar and the first appellant and his brother Velliangiri whose legal representatives are appellants 2 to 5 and three others, who are all the sons of MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar. In that suit, MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar and defendants filed separate statements and later, the first respondent herein exonerated defendants 2 to 6 in that suit and the suit was dismissed as against defendants 2 to 6 and MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar submitted to decree, and the suit was decreed as against the said MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar on 21.7.1977. Thereafter, on 9.2.1978, the said MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar handed over possession of the property to the first respondent herein and as the said MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar did not execute the sale deed as per the decree passed in O.S.No.466 of 1975, the first respondent herein filed E.P.No.128 of 1988 against MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar and during the pendency of the said E.P., he died and his legal representatives were added in that Execution Proceedings and they remained ex parte and thereafter the sale deed was executed on 12.4.1989 by court and eversince the handing over of possession by MARUDHACHALAM Chettiar and from the date of sale, the first respondent claims to be in possession of the property as the owner and as his possession is sought to be disturbed by the appellants and respondents 2 to 19, the first respondent filed the suit for injunction in O.S.No.906 of 1989.

(3.) THE following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission in