K M MADHAVAKRISHNAN Vs. S R SWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history. Both parties are in Court fighting their litigation tooth and nail from the year 1968 onwards. On the first round of litigation, the suit O.S. No. 71 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode, initiated by the appellant herein and her mother, ended in dismissal and Appeal No. 928 of 1975 filed by the appellant herein in this Court was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 5-2-1980 (K. M. Madhavakrishnan v. S. R. Swami, (1980) 2 Mad LJ 398). Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the unsuccessful plaintiff K. M. Madhavakrishnan filed Civil Appeal No. 1368 of 1980 before the Supreme Court. The same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9-11-1983 under Ex.A.22. The first round of litigation was given a quietus by the judgment of the Supreme Court on 9-11-1983.

(2.) The said suit O.S. No. 71 of 1968 was filed by one Paramayammal, mother of the appellant herein, for a declaration that the agreement of sale executed by her in favour of defendants 1 and 2 therein, who are the respondents herein, was void and inoperative and for an injunction restraining the respondents herein from enforcing or making use of the same. The said agreement was also filed along with the plaint and marked as Ex.A.13 in that suit. Paramayammal contended that the agreement in question was not genuine and not enforceable and that the recitals regarding consideration found in the agreement for sale were false and that she was induced to put her signature on the representation that the same was required for securing possession from the tenants. According to her, she did not enter into any agreement of sale at all and the document was not intended to be acted upon as genuine document to sell the property in favour of the respondents herein. Her principal contention in the said suit was, that the suit agreement is vitiated by fraud, undue influence and illegality and on that ground she sought for a declaration that the sale agreement is void and inoperative.

(3.) The suit property consists of 4.04 acres of land comprised in T.S. No. 1332 in Erode Town. The same was allotted to the share of Paramayammal in the suit O.S. No. 111 of 1954 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, filed for partition by the appellant herein. Pursuant to the interim final decree passed on 19-11-1954 in that suit, Paramayammal took possession of the suit property, which was leased to third parties, and the tenants were in possession at the time when the suit agreement was executed. According to the respondents herein, Paramayammal agreed to sell the suit property under the agreement dated 17-6-1967 to them for a consideration of Rs. 1,90,000/- within a period of six months from that date and also agreed to give vacant possession of the lands after evicting the tenants. It was further agreed that if Paramayammal was unable to evict the tenants within a period of six months from 17-6-1967, she will sell the property within a period of three months from the time she got possession from the tenants. A sum of Rs. 10,011 /- was received as advance and it was agreed that the balance of Rs. 1,79,989/- is payable at the time of executing the sale deed. An option was given to the respondents herein to purchase the property even if the tenants were not vacated or to have the agreement cancelled. The agreement also enabled the respondents herein to transfer the agreement to third parties and that the vendor Paramayammal also agreed to sell the property to the plaintiffs or their nominees.