G.KUMAR Vs. SAMUTHIRADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs.D.Samudhiradevi and Mr.G.Sugumar, are the plaintiff and defendant respectively in the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2005, filed for a direction to the defendant, to execute a sale deed, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit property, as per the agreement of sale, dated 03.10.2002, and to register the same, on receipt of the balance of sale amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in case, if the defendant fails to do so, the Court shall execute a valid sale deed, and to register the same in favour of the plaintiff, as specific performance of the contract and consequently, to direct the defendant, to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, in entirety or in the alternative relief, to direct the defendant (second respondent) to pay a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) After filing the written statement, the defendant remained ex parte. Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and perusing the documents, the learned Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam, by judgment and decree, dated 05.07.2007, has passed the following orders:

(3.) Execution Petition in E.P.No.4 of 2008 has been filed by the Decree Holder. As the defendant failed to execute the sale agreement, the Court below has executed the sale deed on 13.10.2009. Thereafter, Mr.G.Kumar, brother of the defendant, has filed E.A.No.5 of 2011 in E.P.No.4 of 2008, to recall the warrant made in E.P.No.4 of 2008 in O.S.No.20 of 2005. Counter affidavit has been filed by the decree holder. Thereafter, E.A.No.6 of 2012, has been filed by him under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 101 r/w. 151 CPC, contending inter alia that he has a right, title and interest over the suit property and consequently, to hold that the ex parte decree, dated 05.07.2007 and the subsequent execution of sale deed, dated 13.10.2009, as null and void, and not binding on him.