VENKADACHALAM Vs. SEETHARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the defendant will qualify for the protection of the possession of his properties under the doctrine of part performance, i.e., u/s Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act without establishing either that he has performed his part of the contract or that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? This is the substantial question of law formulated in this appeal.

(2.) THE appellants herein, as plaintiffs/owners of suit-property/executants of sale agreement, filed the suit in O.S.No.309 of 1994 seeking the relief of recovery of possession and costs. The suit was decreed directing the defendant to handover possession of the suit properties within a period of one month. The plaintiffs were directed to refund the advance of Rs.7,500/- received by them under Ex.B-1-sale agreement to the defendant. As against this judgment, an appeal was filed by the defendant in A.S.No.157 of 1997. The appeal was allowed by reversing the judgment passed in O.S.No.309 of 1994, thereby dismissing the suit. As against the judgment of the first appellate court, the present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) THE reversal of the decreeing of the suit, is challenged in this appeal, raising the following substantial question of law.