K KANAGARAJ Vs. P PAPPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revision Petitions have been filed against the Order passed in E.A. No.610 of 2012 in E.P. No. 125 of 2011 in O.S. No.81 of 198 6 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore.

(2.) THE 1st Respondent - Mrs. Pappathi instituted a Suit in O.S. No.81 of 1996 before Sub -Court, Coimbatore for Specific Performance of Sale Agreement entered into between her and the Second Respondent - Sarojini on 3.12.1982. As per the Sale Agreement, the 2nd Respondent herein had to deliver vacant possession of the Suit property after evicting the Tenants namely Shanmuga Industries which was thereafter named as Sri Durga Industries and one Mr. Jayaraman. The said Sarojini contested the Suit on various grounds and also stating that she did not Agree to evict the Tenants and deliver the vacant possession.

(3.) AFTER trial, the Suit was Decreed on 26.9.1988 directing the Defendant to execute the Sale Deed after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,59,300/ - and deliver vacant possession to the Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, the Defendant preferred an Appeal in A.S. No.1233 of 1988 before this Court mainly contending that the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant stands frustrated as the Defendant was not in a position to give actual possession since the Tenants are in possession of the Suit properties. During pendency of the Appeal, the Plaintiff filed a Memo and also an Affidavit stating that she was ready and willing to complete the sale by accepting constructive possession and she was not insisting for physical possession. This Court, relying on the decisions of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court reported in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur, AIR 1954 SC 44, and Surjit Kaur v. Naurate Singh and anr., 2001 (1) LW 436 (SC), held that even at the Appellate stage the contention of the Plaintiff can be accepted and further observed that the Defendant had deliberately inducted a party into the possession after entering into an Agreement, only with the object of frustrating the contract which is legally impermissible. It is further held as follows: