ARUNACHALA MUDALIAR Vs. JAYALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent/first defendant owned the suit property. The appellant/second defendant claims to have purchased the property bona fide on 22-4-1982. Ex. B4 is the sale deed and Ex. B5 is the sale agreement dated 25-1 l-1981 that is said to have preceded it. On the other hand, the first respondent/plaintiff claims to be entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement Ex. A7 dated 6-2-1982, between her and the first defendant. The first defendant after filing the written statement remained ex parte. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned single Judge granted a decree.

(2.) According to the plaint, on 3-8-1981, an agreement was entered into between the first defendant and the husband of the plaintiff for conveying the suit property for a price of Rs. 24,410/-. Anotice dated 1-1-1982 was issued by the plaintiff s husband and a suit was filed. Other suits for injunction and other reliefs were filed by the parties herein against each other. To purchase peace, a Panchayat was convened and the wellwishers of the village persuaded the plaintiff and the first defendant to cancel the agreement dated 3-8-1981 and to enter into a fresh agreement, to purchase the property for a higher consideration. So the suit agreement, Ex.A7 dated 6-2-1982 was entered into. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 37,500/- and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is alleged to have been received as advance.

(3.) Further according to the plaintiff, she was put in possession of the property in part performance of the agreement and permission was given to the first defendant to harvest the paddy in existence in the field at the time when the keys of the pump set was handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant is only an agricultural coolie incapable of paying any amount for purchasing a suit property and he was fully aware of the Panchayat and had notice of the same and cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of the suit agreement. Since the second defendant trespassed into the property, the suit notice dated 25-4-1982 was issued. There was no response. The suit has been filed.