(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance instituted by the appellant here in. It is the case of the appellant that under ex. A-1,dated 12. 4. 1971 defendants l and 2 agreed to sell the suit properties at the rate of Rs. 4,500 per acre. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid as advance on the date of agreement. The total consideration works out to Rs. 66,040. Initially, it was agreed that the sale should be executed within a period of one year. On 5. 4. 1972, an endorsement was made extending the period for completion of the transaction till 5. 5. 1972. On 3. 5. 1972 another endorsement was made by which the period was extended to 15. 5. 1972. On 13. 5. 1972 an endorsement was made evidencing payment of Rs. 10,000 by way of further advance and extending the time to 13. 8. 1972. There after, there was no extention of time as such. On 3. 8. 1972 a sum of Rs. 19,000 was paid and a receipt was executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has paid a sum of rs. 39,000 in all. One Thirumalaiappa filed a suit O. S. No. 1670 of 1971 for injunction restraining the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with his alleged possession. He claimed to be a tenant of the suit properties. The fourth defendant herein, who is the son of the plaintiff, filed O. S. No. 845 of 1972 for an injunction against Thirumalaiappan and the second defendant as well as the present plaintiff. The fourth defendant had purchased l/4th share in the suit properties earlier. The plaintiff claimed that he was a tenant of the property even before the suit agreement was entered. The suit filed by thirumalaiappa was dismissed and the suit filed by the fourth defendant was decreed. The appeals against the decrees were dismissed and the second appeals in this Court, viz. , S. A. No. 2001 of 1978 and S. A. No. 2335 of 1978 were disposed on 10. 8. 1979. The second appeal which arose out of Thirumalaiappas suit was dismissed, but the second appeal which arose out of the fourth defendants suit was allowed and the decree was set aside with the result that O. S. No. 845 of 1972 was also dismissed.
(2.) SOON after the disposal of the appeals in the first appellate court, the plaintiff issued notice to defendants 1 and 2 under ex. A-15 dated 22. 9. 1972 calling upon them to execute the sale deed. They were received by the defendants on 26. 9. 1972 as evident from the postal acknowledgments. There was no reply thereto. The plaintiff issued another notice on 24. 7. 1978 under Ex. A-18. Tothata reply was sent by defendants land 2 on 31. 7. 1978 under Ex. A-20. They denied their liability to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is not necessary to go into the details of the reply notice. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 4. 12. 1980.
(3.) THE only ground on which the court below has dismissed the suit is that the agreement is void in as much as it is against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act (58 of 1961 ). Sec. 23 of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment in 1974 provided that the Authorised Officer shall not take into consideration any transfer, whether by sale or by gift, exchange, surrender, settlement or otherwise effected on or after the notified date and before the date of the publication of the final statement under Sec. 12 or 14. By Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1974 the section was amended and after amendment it reads, in so far as it is relevant in this case, thus: ' (1) Subject to the provisions of Sec. 20 for the purpose of fixing, for the first time after the date of the commencement of this Act, the ceiling area of any person holding land on the date of the commencement of this Act in excess of 30 standard acres- (a) any transfer, whether by sale (including sale in execution of a decree or order of a civil court of an award or order of any other lawful authority) or by gift (other than gift made in contemplation of death), exchange, surrender, settlement or otherwise or (b) any sub-division (including sub-division by a decree or order of a civil court or any other lawful authority) whether by partition or otherwise effected on or after the notified date and before the publication of a notification under Sub-sec. (l) of Sec. 18 shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, void and accordingly the authorized Officer shall calculate the ceiling area of such person as if no such transfer of sub-division had taken place. Explanation: This sub-section shall, on and from the 15th day of February, 1970 have effect as if for the figures and words 30 standard acres had been substituted. (2) It shall be the duty of the authorised officer to include the land so transferred or subdivided, within the ceiling area of the transferor or the person who held the land immediately before such sub-division, as the case may be, as if no such transfer or sub-division had taken place.