VIJAY LALCHAND HUF Vs. K M LULLA HUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants are the plaintiffs in the suit. THEy filed the suit for a decree and judgment directing the respondent to transfer the property by executing a sale deed and registering the same in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Adyar, Madras-600020, and for granting a permanent injunction restraining the respondent, his agents, servants, or men from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the suit property and for costs. Along with the suit, they filed O.A. Nos. 53 to 55 of 1994 for interim injunction. In O.A. No. 55 of 1994, interim injunction was granted on 18-1-1994 restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession of the applicants of the suit property. THE respondent has filed Application No. 3332 of 1994 to vacate the interim injunction granted in O.A. No. 55 of 1994. A common counter affidavit has been filed in O.A. Nos. 53 to 55 of 1994.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:? THE applicants had filed the above suit for specific performance of an oral agreement entered into between the 1st applicant and the respondent and for consequential injunction. Both parties are very closely related. THE respondent is related to the 1st applicant as the latter had married the sister of the former by name Mansha. According to the applicants, they identified a large extent of land measuring an extent of 7.37 acres comprised in R.S. No. 1/2A, I njambakkam village and decided to buy the large extent of land. THE land owners were requested to divide the entire extent of land into six convenient plots. THE entire extent was divided into two halves leaving a 24' private pathway in the middle of the land. It was decided to acquire the three plots situate on the northern side of the pathway by the 1st applicant and his wife and the three plots situate on the southern side of the pathway should be bought by the respondent and his wife, THE parties purchased the respective plots. THE property bought by the respondent is the subject matter of the present suit.

(3.) ACCORDING to the applicants, immediately after the Income-tax Clearance Certificate was issued, the 1st applicant tendered the sale consideration to the respondent and requested him to execute the sale deed, and the respondent, though agreed to execute the sale deed, was postponing the same without any reasonable cause. The 1st applicant has also constructed a compound wall encircling the total area of 7.37 acres and provided for a gate on the northern side of the entire extent of land. The 1st applicant has also employed his own security to protect the entire extent of land and that all these things were done by the 1st applicant and his wife as the owners of the lands and also agreement holders of the lands belonging to the respondent and his wife. It is also the case of the applicants that a very big temple for Shiridi Sai Baba was also built. Even though the 1st applicant tendered the sale consideration on several times, the respondent did not receive the same but represented that the 1st applicant could always pay the sale consideration as he had the necessary source. ACCORDING to the applicants, the discussions were held in the presence of Mr. Sudhir Patel, their common auditor. The 1st applicant has always been ready and willing to perform the contract by paying the consideration and get the conveyance in his favour at his expense. Because of the misunderstanding between the parties, complaints were made to the police authorities, who visited the lands.