A.M.A. WAHAB Vs. NADAR ELEMENTARY PADASALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.117 of 1984 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for directing the defendants to execute the sale of the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as per the order passed in O.P.No.156 of 1980 dated 25.8.1980 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore and for the costs. The suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

(3.) The first and fourth defendants filed a statement admitting the allegation that the suit property belonged to the Trust and also stated that the application was filed before the District Court to sell the suit property for the highest bidder and also to the maximum advantage of the Trust and the sale price ought to be fixed by conducting public auction and mere deposit of any amount by the plaintiff in his name cannot confer any right on the plaintiff to purchase the suit property. It is also stated that the said suit property is situate in Rangai Gowder Street, wherein properties are sold on square feet basis and the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is not complete as alleged by the plaintiff. As per the order dated 24.4.1981 made in O.P.No.156 of 1980, the sale was subject to the permission to be granted by the Education Department and it was also made clear that the sanction by the Education Department was a condition precedent for offering sale and therefore, till sanction is obtained, the contract cannot be enforced. They also denied the allegation that they changed their attitude after the order was passed on 24.4.1981. It is further stated that the Education Department have not granted any permission and in the meanwhile, there were more offers offering more than the price offered by the plaintiff and the trustees are bound to sell the property for the highest price and therefore, they are not bound to sell the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. Further, the plaintiff filed an application in the year 1983 to modify the order passed on 24.4.1981 by filing I.A.No.189 of 1983 and the same was also dismissed and therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek specific performance of the sale transaction as per the order dated 24.4.1981. They also stated that the tenant offered to purchase the suit property for the higher price and also made an application to the District Court and offered a higher price and that petition was also dismissed and aggrieved against that order, the tenant filed C.R.P.Nos.4666 and 4667 of 1983 on the file of the High Court. It is also stated that the first defendant being a public Trust, it cannot sell the property for a lesser price and the trustees are bound to see that maximum price is obtained for sale of the trust property and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for. It is also stated that the sale had to be completed by 30.9.1980 and the suit was filed only in March, 1984 and, in the meanwhile, no steps were taken to complete the transaction, and therefore, the suit is also barred by limitation.