T PERIASAMY NADAR ETC Vs. T D RAMASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON JUDGMENT In these four appeals the defendant is the same person. All the four appeals arise out of a common Judgment rendered by the trial court. The point that arises for consideration in the four appeals are similar. All the four appeals can be dealt with by a common Judgment.

(2.) THESE appeals A.S. Nos. 427 of 1981 to 430 of 1981 are respectively against the decree and Judgments in the suits O.S. Nos. 3811 of 3814 of 1978 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. O.S. No. 3311 of 1978 was filed by three brothers viz., T. Periasamy Nadar, T. Murugesan, and T. Thangaraj against T.D. Ramasubramaniam. The other three suits, namely O.S. Nos. 3812 to 3814 of 1978 were filed individually by the said three brothers against the same defendant, i.e. T.D. Ramasubramaniam respectively by T. Murugesan, T. Thangaraj and T. Periasamy. All the four suits were dismissed and therefore, these appeals are filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) IT is argued by the learned counsel as regards first point that the only provision of law that requires permission to sell is S. 26 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 34 of 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act, but a reading of the Section would show that it does not apply to the lands in question. The material portion of the section reads thus: ?no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease for a period exceeding ten years, or otherwise, any urban or urbanism land with a building (whether constructed before or after the commencement of this Act) or a portion only of such building for a period of ten years of such commencement from the date on which the building is constructed whichever is later, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority.? IT is clear from this that permission to sell is necessary only for sale of an urban and urbanisable land with a building or a part of building. IT is argued that under the agreements Exs. Al to A4 only the lands are agreed to be sold and no building whatsoever and therefore S. 26 is not attracted to the suit agreements. The learned counsel appears to be correct. IT is possible that the parties did not understand the section clearly and therefore they thought that permission is necessary or that it would be better by way of abundant caution permission is obtained. IT must be noted that the lands agreed to be sold are contiguous and form part of one land and there is a building in it which has been raised by the tenant of the land. However it may be, it appears that definitely both the parties had the view that permission must be obtained and therefore they inserted a clause therefor in the agreement. Even subsequently throughout until the time it is now argued so in the appeal, it was never said by the plaintiffs that no permission was necessary. Therefore if the agreements have become void or even terminated by the defendant for the reason that permission could not be obtained the argument that permission is not necessary in law cannot be countenanced. In my Judgment, for the reasoning I would give infra while dealing with the point No.(iv) raised by the learned counsel, the agreements have become void and unenforceable.