RAMASWAMY GOUNDER Vs. K.M. VENKATACHALAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenth defendant in O.S. No. 93 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem is the appellant herein. Admittedly respondents two to ten herein entered into an agreement for the sale of certain immovable property for Rs. 15,500 under Exhibit A-1 dated 14th October, 1967 in favour of two individuals. The first respondent herein obtained an assignment of that agreement from those two individuals under Exhibit A-2 dated 25th October, 1967. It is on the strength of this assignment that the first respondent instituted the present suit for specific performance of the agreement under Exhibit A-1. The appellant herein, who was the tenth defendant in the suit, was the purchaser of 2/3 of the suit property under Exhibit B-9 dated 27th February, 1968 from defendants 1 and 3. According to the first respondent, the appellant herein was a subsequent transferee with knowledge of the existence of the agreement, Exhibit A-1, and therefore the sale in his favour would not be binding on him (first respondent). The first respondent stated in his plaint that an advance of Rs. 1,500 was paid on the date of Exhibit A-1, that the balance of consideration to be paid was Rs. 14,000 and that under Exhibit A-1 five months time was available for executing and registering the sale deed. According to the first respondent, after the assignment dated 25th October, 1967 he had been pressing defendants 1 to 9 at various times to receive the balance of sale price of Rs. 14,000 and to execute the sale deed at his cost, tendered the balance of the sale price of Rs. 14,000 to defendants 1 to 9 on 14th February, 1968 and requested them to execute the sale deed in his name at his cost in respect of the suit properties after receiving the balance of the sale price, but they evaded to execute the sale deed and delayed the matter. His further case was that even prior to 14th February, 1968 he tendered the balance of the sale price to them on many occasions and requested them to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance of the sale price and that they delayed and evaded to execute the sale deed. His further case in the plaint was that on 16th February, 1968 he and his assignors had issued a notice to defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 calling upon them to come to Pethanaickanpalayam Sub Registrar's office on 24th February, 1968 with defendants 4 and 7 to 9 and then to execute and register a proper sale deed in favour of the first respondent, after receiving the balance of the sale price of Rs. 14,000 at his cost; defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 had received the said notice; the first respondent went to Pethanaickenpalayam Sub-Registrar's Office on 24th February, 1968 within whose jurisdiction the suit properties were situate for the purpose of registration with necessary stamp papers and with the balance of the purchase money of Rs. 14,000 for payment to defendants 1 to 9; the first respondent had gone to the Sub-Registrar's office on 24th February, 1968 with one Rama Gounder, his son Perianna Gounder and one Annaswami and Chinna Pillai, defendants 1, 3 and 6 came to the Sub-Registrar's office on the said date and they evaded to execute the sale deed in favour of the first respondent; on 25th February, 1968 the first respondent met the first and third defendants in the house of the third defendant and requested them to execute the sale deed along with the other defendants in his favour after receiving the balance of the sale price, but they evaded and postponed the execution and registration of the sale deed; again on 26th February, 1998 the first respondent met the first defendant with the balance of the purchase money and requested, her to execute the sale deed along with the other defendants after receiving the balance of the sale price, but she evaded the execution and postponed it to 29th February, 1968, and further demanded an extra amount of Rs. 500. TO the notice issued by the first respondent defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 issued a reply notice dated 22nd February, 1968 through their counsel with false allegations and fixing the very date of 24th February, 1968 fixed by the first respondent at an unreasonable place for the execution of the sale deed with a view to cover up their default and to evade the execution of the sale deed in favour of the first respondent; the sixth defendant had again sent another reply notice dated 22nd February, 1968 through another counsel saying that he would be present on 24th February, 1968 at the Sub-Registrar's Office for executing the sale deed, and demanding one-third portion of the sale consideration for himself. The plaint then refers to the sale of the suit property in favour of the appellant herein and states that the sale was not valid and binding on the first respondent. Under these circumstances, the first respondent prayed for a decree for specific performance of the agreement under Exhibit A-1.

(2.) There were three written statements, one filed by the first defendant adopted by the third defendant, another by the sixth defendant and the third by the appellant herein. One of the pleas put forward by the defendants in their written statements was that the agreement, Exhibit A-1, was to sell 1.81 acres of punja land and only 0.30 cents of nanja land in survey No. 113/4 alone and that they did not agree to sell 1.44 acres of nanja land in four survey numbers, viz., 113/4 113/6, 113/9 and 113/2. The appellant herein contended that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of Exhibit A-1.

(3.) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief in respect of R.S. Nos. 113/6, 113/9 and 113/2