E V PALANIVELU Vs. KRISHNA TALKIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions have been posted for argument on the question of maintainability raised by the Registry. One application is for impleading the petitioner as a party to the O.S.Appeal and the second petition is for the direction to respondents 11 to 16 to execute a sale deed to and in favour of the petitioner as nominee of the first respondent. O.S.Appeal No.179 of 1989 arises under the following circumstances The appellants in O.S.A.No.l79 of 1989 (respondents 1 to 6 in C.M.P.) , as owners of the land on which the cinema theatre (Sri Krishna Talkies) had been built filed O.S.No.471 of 1986 against the partners of the 'Sri Krishna Talkies'(respondents 7 to 21 in C.M.P.) for recovery of possession of the site. Respondents 7 to 21 as defendants claimed rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922. By an order dated 18.8.1988 this Court declared the right of respondents 7 to 21 to purchase the site. This order dated 18.8.1988 was taken upon appeal by respondents 1 to 6 in the above O.S.Appeal. The O.S.Appeal was finally disposed of on 6.10.1989 fixing the value of the site as Rs.63,93,600 and respondents 7 to 21 were directed to pay the said amount in instalments. The entire payment was to be completed by 31.12.1991.

(2.) THE allegation of the petitioner is that respondents 7 to 21 had entered into an agreement with the petitioner and it is with the help of the petitioner that they paid the amount as fixed by this Court on 6.10.1989. THE petitioner bases his claim on the terms and conditions of a sale agreement dated 25.4.1991 between respondents 7 to 21 and the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he should be nominated as the purchaser by respondents 7 to 21, in the event of the decree in O.S.No.471 of 1986 being given effect to. THE warrant for filing this petition to implead the petitioner as a party in the O.S.Appeal, is the difference of opinion that has developed between respondents 7 to 21 and the petitioner in respect of the said agreement dated 25.4.1991. While respondents 7 to 21 are treating the amounts as a loan, the petitioner is treating the amount as payment of price under the sale agreement dated 25.4.1991.