S S CHOKKALINGAM Vs. R B S MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered in four suits tried together in which evidence is recorded in common. The earliest suit is at present bearing the number O.S.No.3 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamallee. That was filed on 11.11.1981. That is a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.2,975 upto October, 1981. That suit has been filed by T.G.Sairam and G.Rama. They have claimed title to the property under a purchase dated 16.2.1981. The only defendant in the suit is the appellant before us.

(2.) THE nextsuit in chronology is O.S.No.52 of 1984 filed by the appellant herein in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee for specific performance of a contract dated 1.6.1978 directing the defendants to execute and register a sale deed and to receive a sum of Rs.37,500 or any other sum of as may be determined by the Court. THE defendants in that suit are R.B.S.Mani, R.Sankaran, T.G.Sairam and Rama Bai. Defendants 3 and 4 in that suit are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.3 of 1987 referred to earlier. THE first defendant was the prior owner of the suit property and the second defendant was his power agent. That suit having been dismissed, the plaintiff in that suit has preferred A.S.No.1284 of 19S9. THE other two suits are O.S.Nos.349 of 1987 and 68 of 1988 for recovery of arrears of rent for subsequent periods, one for October, 1981 to June, 1984 and another for July, 1984 to January, 1988 and the only defendant in both the suits is the appellant herein. THE suits were decreed and the defendant has preferred appeals. Thus, the appellant in all the four appeals is the same person, while respondents 3 and 4 in A.S.No.1284 of 1989, which arises out of the suit for specific performance are respondents 1 and 2 in other three appeals. In A.S.No.1284 of 1989, two more persons have got impleaded as respondents 5 and 6 on the ground that they have purchased the property* from respondents 3 and 4 during the pendency of the appeal on 6.9.1991. In the other appeals they have been impleaded as respondents 3 and 4. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties by their rank in A.S.No.1284 of 1989.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the appellant filed on 23.9.1982 the suit for specific performance. In the plaint it is alleged that the first defendant agreed to receive the consideration in driblets and register the sale deed as and when the plaintiff wanted him to execute the sale deed and as such, no time limit was fixed for the execution of the document. It was also alleged that the appellant is in possession in part performance of the contract. Having stated that a sum of Rs.32,500 has been paid by way of advance, it is only the balance that is due to the defendants. It is recited in paragraph 5 of the plaint that the plaintiff has ample means to pay the balance of sale consideration and to take the sale deed at all relevant times. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it is stated that after coming to know the alleged sale deed in favour of respondents 3 and 4, a panchayat was held in the presence of respectable people like Mr.Govindarajan, Ex-panchayat Board President of Valasaravakkam, Madras-67, Mr.Kasi Nadar son of Peria Nadar and others for executing the sale deed in favour of the appellant. It is also allegd that the post card written by the said Mr.Govindarajan in that connection will be traced out and filed later. It should be mentioned that no such post card has been filed in court: nor any of the alleged panchayatdars has been examined as a witness in this case.