PONNUSWAMY NADAR Vs. NARAYANAN NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff on O. S. 43 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil. The said suit was filed by him for declaration of his title to and possession of the plaintiff schedule property and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession, and if the defendant managed to get possession by force and was found to be in possession for directing him to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff with mesne profits after giving declaration of title, and for costs.

(2.) THE plaint allegations were as follows: The plaint schedule property is a portion of S. No. 1398/63-A in Kaliyal Village, the total extent of which is 250 acres. The said 250 acres belonged to one Mrs. Mohamed Mustaffa, son of masthan Rowther. He executed in agreement of sale dated 16-9-1957 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said 250 acres, for a total consideration of Rs. 62,500/- and the plaintiff also paid an advance of Rs. 1,801/- to Mustaffa. From the time of the said agreement, the plaintiff was requesting Mustaffa to give the property on sale for a total consideration of Rs. 50,000/- which request mustaffa also promised to consider, and it was under the said circumstances the consideration was recited as Rs. 62,500 in the agreement. The defendant was an intimate friend of the plaintiff and he was also a lessee of Mustaffa. While so, upto 25-9-1958 the plaintiff had paid to Mustaffa total sum of Rs. 27,876/ -. Sometimes, the plaintiff had sent amounts to Mustaffa through the defendant. By that time, Mustaffa also was pleased to reduce the sale amount to Rs. 50,000/ -. Because of the confidence in Mustaffa, the plaintiff also did not get any receipts, excepting a few receipts obtained in the name of the defendant and those receipts are with the defendant. The plaintiff is a Government servant and he retired on 7-12-1967. So, he requested Mustaffa to execute a sale deed ostensibly in the name of the defendant. So, on 29-9-1958, Mustaffa executed a sale deed in the name of the defendant. On the date of sale, the plaintiff made three separate payments of Rs. 1,600/- Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 524/ -. After the date of sale, the the plaintiff has also paid to Mustaffa various sums, totalling Rs. 18,000/ -. while so, in October 1958, when the plaintiff met mustaffa, he wanted to verify the account regarding the amounts paid till then. On reconciliation, it was found that a sum of Rs. 524/- had not been credited by mustaffa. Mustaffa promised to rectify the accounts. Even regarding the payments made after 29-9-1958, the plaintiff had paid some amounts through the defendant. Even after the agreement of sale, the plaintiff had begun negotiations with various persons to sell various portions of the property. Even on the date of sale executed by Mustaffa, the plaintiff made the defendant to execute a sale in favour of one Joseph Muthian with regard to an extent of 9 acres. On the same day, the plaintiff cause a formal sale to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff himself in respect of 25 acres. In the said 25 acres, the plaintiff had already planted in June 1958 rubber, with the knowledge and consent of Mustaffa. The said 25 acres were taken in order to enable him to made an application for licence. Apart from the two sale deeds above-mentioned, the plaintiff caused the defendant to execute five more sale deeds in that year. In the year 1959, the plaintiff brought about altogether ten sale deeds and according to the directions of the plaintiff, the defendant executed those sale deeds. In 1960, as per the plaintiff's directions, the defendant executed three more sale deeds. An extent of 45 acres 20 cents, described in the plaint schedule, stands ostensibly in the name of the defendant. Because of confidence, the plaintiff did not take care to have the sale deed dated 29-91958 obtained from Mustaffa and the tax receipts, with him. The plaintiff has also spent a lot of money on the plaint schedule property for planting rubber. Through the defendant also, a lot of money has been spent. In addition to the above, the plaintiff has also paid to the defendant moneys for the friendship and work done by him for the plaintiff. The defendant had not paid nor spent any money of his own for getting the sale or for improving the property. While so, the plaintiff had reason to suspect some bad motive in the defendant. He asked the defendant to execute a formal deed acknowledging the benami nature of the document of sale of the year 1958, but the defendant refused. On 16-1-1968, the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant, demanding him to execute a formal deed, for which the defendant replied on 31-1-1968, raising false and untenable contentions. Hence the suit. The plaintiff also alleged that the plaint schedule property would yield a profit of Rs. 2,000/- per annum at the time of the presentation of the plaint.

(3.) THE defendant filed a written statement contending as follows: The defendant purchased the entire property from Mustaffa on 29-9-1958 with his own money and has become the owner thereon. The plaintiff acted only as a broker and on the same date 29-9-1958 the defendant executed a sale deed respect of 25 acres for Rs. 2,000/- in lieu of the work done by the plaintiff as a broker. The defendant is not aware of any transaction between the plaintiff and mustaffa. He never took any money to Mustaffa for the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not make any payment to Mustaffa and he had nothing to do with the sale in favour of the defendant. On 29-9-1958, the defendant sold 9 acres of land to joseph Muthian for Rs. 1,500/ -. The plaintiff is estopped from denying the defendant's title. The defendant has executed various sale deeds to various parties out of his own volition and had received moneys therefor, and he is in possession of 45 acres 20 cents as owner and the plaintiff has no right over the same. The defendant planted rubber in about 25 acres and he had put up building. In the remaining area he has planted other trees and has spent more than Rs. 75,000/ -. The plaintiff wanted the defendant to sell property and the defendant refused and so the plaintiff has filed this suit to blackmail him. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The defendant denies all the other allegations made in the plaint.