THANGAMUTHU AND ORS. Vs. SRIDEVI VENKIDASAMY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs and few others filed separate suits for specific performance of sale agreements executed by each one of them with one L. Kumarasamy arrayed as the 4th defendant in the suits. The relief sought for in all the suits is for directing the defendants 1 to 3 to execute the sale deeds on receiving the balance sale consideration and for directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit mentioned properties.

(2.) THERE were totally 35 sale deeds and 35 suits filed between 1979 and 1982. As the subject matter of all the sale agreements is forming part of the same property measuring 3 acres and 38cents and as the main controversy in issue involved in all the suits and as the documents based on which the reliefs sought for and the defendants against whom the reliefs sought for are one and the same, all the suits were jointly tried and were by common judgment and decree dated 12.1.1989 dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, 29 out of 34 plaintiffs filed appeals, which were, by common judgment dated 28.11.2007 dismissed by the lower appellate court, thereby, agreeing with the findings of the trial court and by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Challenging the same, out of 29, 15 appellants have come forward with the present second appeals before this court. The total extent of the property covered in all the present second appeals is 97 cents, out of 3 acres and 38 cents and all the second appeals for the reasons stated supra are hence disposed of by common judgment by this court.

(3.) THE relief sought for in the suits was seriously contested by the defendants 1 to 4 on various grounds. According to the defendants, the power of attorney was valid only for 3 months and on the death of the principal, the power of attorney became unenforceable. The suit agreements executed without obtaining any exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act are against the public policy and are not enforceable against the defendants 1 to 3, who are not parties to the contract and the suit agreements came into existence by an act of collusion between the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant. The defendants have also in their written statements denied the plea of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.