E EKAMBARAM Vs. R DEENA DAYALU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been brought forth from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram made in AS No.45 of 1991, wherein the judgment of dismissal by the trial court in OS No.225 of 1982 , a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale of an immovable property was affirmed.

(2.) The plaintiff has sought the relief stating that the immovable property situated in Door No.37/A/2 belonged to the defendants 1 and 2; that they agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff on 2.8.1981 and the document was marked as Ex.A.1; that the consideration was fixed at Rs.8500/-; that an advance of Rs.1000/- was paid on that day; that the balance should be paid on or before 2.11.1981; that despite many demands made, there was an evasion on the part of the defendants; that the second defendant sold the property to the third defendant; that the plaintiff issued notice to all the defendants under Ex.A.2 dated 7.11.1981, which resulted in a reply by the first defendant found under Ex.A.3 dated 12.11.1981 containing false allegations, which compelled the plaintiff to file the suit for specific performance.

(3.) The defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte. The third defendant contested the suit by stating that the suit property belonged to one Krishnaveni Ammal; that on her death about 30 or 32 years ago, her son, the second defendant, who was the only legal heir, was entitled to succeed the same, since she did not make any arrangement with regard to the property; that the suit property belonged to number of sharers; that the father-in-law of the third defendant was also occupying a portion of the suit property; that the third defendant had purchased the suit property from the second defendant on 29.7.1981 even before Ex.A.1 agreement, and thus, the first defendant had no right in the suit property and the third defendant was the bona fide purchaser for the value, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.