VELMURUGANATARAJA PILLAI Vs. CHINNIAH PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern both the second appeals, namely S.A.Nos.1 096 and 1097 of 1993.

(2.) These second appeals have arisen from the judgment of the first appellate court, namely, the learned District Judge, Dindigul made in AS Nos.77 and 80 of 1990. Those two first appeals were filed by the plaintiff in OS No.883 of 1985 on the dismissal of the suit and the other filed by the defendant in OS No.868 of 1986, which was decreed.

(3.) The plaintiff in OS No.883 of 1985, who was the defendant in OS No.868 of 1986, filed the suit for specific performance stating that the suit property belonged to him; that the defendant, who was the plaintiff in the other suit, was his brother-in-law; that in consideration of Rs.1000/-, he executed a sale deed in favour of the opposite party; that it was understood in the presence of the relatives that on receipt of the said amount, he should execute reconveyance deed; that the plaintiff, despite the sale deed, continues to be in possession of the property; that there was a demand for reconveyance deed, but the defendant refused to do so; that the plaintiff issued a notice on 7.8.85, which resulted in reply, and hence there arose a necessity for filing the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff is the defendant in the other suit in OS No.868 of 1986, which was one for recovery of possession and for mesne profits.