T.R.PACHAMUTHU Vs. E.BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed in A.No.2920 of 2010 in C.S.No.764 of 2001, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) (i).According to the appellant/plaintiff, the respondents 1 to 9, along with one E.Sampath, one of the sons of P.Elumalai Naicker and Chockammal, wife of P.Elumalai Naicker approached the appellant for the sale of the suit property at the rate of Rs.5,20,000.00 per ground claiming that they are the absolute owners of the suit property. They also informed the appellant that there were 34 hutment dwellers in the suit property, who are the encroachers. They agreed to vacate them and handover the vacant possession. Believing the said representation, the appellant entered into an agreement of sale dtd. 11/7/1990, agreeing to purchase the suit property at the rate of Rs.5,20,000.00 per ground. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 as advance on the date of agreement. It was agreed that the appellant will vacate the encroachers/hutment dwellers and a sum of Rs.15,00,000.00 will be retained by the appellant from total sale consideration to pay compensation for evicting the hutment dwellers and take possession from them. The appellant subsequently paid Rs.3,00,000.00 on 7/3/1991 and Rs.4,00,000.00 on 27/7/1991. The vendors acknowledged the payment of total sum of Rs.10,00,000.00. In fact, there were 41 hutment dwellers in the suit property. Some of them had put up pucca construction, claiming to be the tenants under the vendors and claiming rights under the City Tenants Protection Act. The vendors were not cooperating with the appellant for evicting the encroachers. On the other hand, they were instigating some of the encroachers to demand more money for vacating the suit property. The appellant was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed as appellant required vacant site for future development of his educational institution. Some of the encroachers filed suits in the City Civil Court and obtained interim injunction. The appellant spent 25 Lakhs than the agreed amount of 15 Lakhs and vacated hutment dwellers. After vacating the encroachers, the appellant took vacant possession of the land, improved the property, put up a compound wall, appointed a Security to keep the property protected from the encroachers. The appellant during October, 1992 itself sent draft sale deed to the respondents for approval. The appellant and his agent were meeting the respondents 1 to 9 and others very often and requested them to cooperate for execution of the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. But the respondents failed to cooperate to finalize the sale deed.

(3.) (i).The respondents 1 to 9 and defendants 4 and 6 entered appearance in the suit in C.S.No.764 of 2001 filed by the appellant. The 1st respondent filed written statement in November, 2001. The respondents 2 to 9 and 6th defendant adopted the said written statement. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed. At this stage, the respondents 1 to 9 filed Application No.2920 of 2010 under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., seeking to reject the plaint in C.S.No.764 of 2001 in so far as the respondents 1 to 9 are concerned.