LAKSHMI Vs. APPARAO GARDEN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is filed for the relief of direction against the defendants 1 to 14 to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property by removing all the construction, if any, put up there on and in default, permit the plaintiffs to remove the superstructure and constructions and recover the costs of the same from the defendants and for costs.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that, the part of the land to an extent of 10 grounds and 1700 sq.ft. in T.S.No.12, Block No.11, Puliyur Village, Egmore - Nungambakkam Taluk, morefully described in the schedule was owned by K.R.Sundararajan, husband of the second plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs and the 15th defendant. It was purchased under a sale deed dtd. 29/10/1950, from one P.Srinivasa Iyengar. K.R.Sundararajan and other owners of the adjacent lands appointed one P.K.Sowmyanarayanan, Advocate, as their agent to sell the properties in favour of the first defendant Society. The said power agent entered into an agreements of sale on 28/2/1978 and on 2/4/1978 with the first defendant Society for a consideration of Rs.1,15,200.00. Rs.40,200.00 was paid as advance. In the sale agreement dtd. 2/4/1978, no amount was mentioned towards sale consideration and no advance was received by the plaintiffs and the 15th defendant's father or his agent. It was mutually agreed that the sale price relating to the suit property would be fixed separately and the sale deeds relating to the extent of property in favour of the first defendant Society will be executed on receiving the entire sale consideration. The first defendant Society was unable to honour its commitment. The first defendant Society filed a suit in O.S. No.7732 of 1988, on the file of VII Assistant City Civil Court for the relief of specific performance directing the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed in favour of the first defendant Society, in respect of the suit property. The suit was dismissed on 8/9/2004 holding that the first defendant is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement. The first defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.360 of 2005, before the IIIrd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. That appeal was dismissed on 3/2/2006, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. First defendant failed to restore the possession of the suit property, which was taken surreptitiously and without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs. The defendants 2 to 14 claim to be the members of the first defendant Society are in illegal and unlawful possession. Since the 15th defendant, sister of the plaintiffs is not cooperating, she is shown as a defendant. Under these circumstances, the suit is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) The case of the first defendant Society is that the first defendant Society already proved that the entire sale consideration was paid to the owner K.R.Sundararajan for the land measuring 24700 sq.ft. in T.S.No.12, Block No.11, Puliyur Village, Egmore - Nungambakkam Taluk. The plaintiffs refused to give the copy of the title deeds. Therefore, the suit in O.S. No.7732 of 1988 was filed for specific performance. The plaintiffs are bound by the terms and conditions in the original sale agreement, dtd. 28/2/1978. The entire sale consideration as per this agreement was paid. The sale agreement does not lapse by efflux of time once the entire sale consideration is paid. There was no agreement to re-fix the sale price. The extent of the property owned by the owner is only 24700 sq.ft. and not 10 grounds and 1700 sq.ft. The Power Agent received an advance amount of Rs.1000.00 towards the sale consideration, by cash. But, he died before executing the sale deed in favour of the first defendant Society. The owner of the land refused to receive the balance sale consideration of the price already fixed under the agreement dtd. 28/2/1978. The possession was handed over on 28/2/1978. The first defendant Society is not bound in law either morally or legally to restore the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. This suit on the same cause of action in earlier proceedings is barred. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.