CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. L. VALLIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 10 of 1999 and cross-objection on this file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1998 in O.S. No. 224 of 1991 by the learned Sub Court, Trivellore.

(2.) THE suit was filed for specific performance by the plaintiffs on the ground that the first defendant in the suit has entered into an agreement of sale with S.P. Lakshmanan for a sum of Rs. 95,000 on 12.7.1978, and on the same day the first defendant received a sum of Rs. 16,000 by way of demand draft and another sum of Rs. 4,000 in cheque from the said S.P. Lakshmanan. Subsequent to the agreement, S.P. Lakshmanan died and his legal representatives have filed a suit for specific performance on the ground that in spite of the demand made by them to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement, the first defendant was evading the execution of the deed of sale. The case of the Plaintiffs is that in spite of the agreement of sale entered between the first defendant and late S.P. Lakshmanan, the first defendant subsequently sold the suit properties for Rs. 85,000 to the second defendant and the second defendant was informed by P.W.2, Devi Lakshmanan with regard to the agreement of sale entered into between the first defendant and late S.P. Lakshmanan and as such the second defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement of sale and according to the plaintiffs they are entitled to the relief for specific performance. It is stated that the sale agreement executed by the first defendant would bind on his sons and grandsons and, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 12.7.1978.

(3.) THE second defendant has filed separate written statement stating that he was not aware of the alleged agreement between S.P. Lakshmanan and the first defendant. The second defendant also denied the fact that he was informed by the plaintiffs' representative Devi Lakshmanan about the said agreement of sale. He also denied the case that Devi Lakshmanan contacted him in the first week of April, 1979 or on subsequent date and enquired him as to how he purchased the suit property when there was already an agreement of sale subsisting between the first defendant and the late S.P. Lakshmanan. The second defendant raised various other contentions and according to him, the plaintiffs at best can claim only damages from the first defendant and the suit against the defendants for specific performance is not maintainable and the second defendant is a bona fide purchaser for the value. The third defendant who is the son of the second defendant remained ex parte after filing the written statement. The third defendant in his written statement raised the same averments which were raised by the second defendant, his father in his written statement. The fourth defendant also filed written statement supporting the case of the defendants 1 and 2. The second defendant died during the trial and the defendants 3 to 5 have been added as legal representatives. The defendants 3 and 5 remained ex parte.