A UMAPATHY Vs. A BALASUBRAMANI GRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN O. A. No. 541 of 1995, the applicant-plaintiff contends briefly as follows. The applicant has filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property is null and void in view of the pre-emptive right for the plaintiff as per the partition deed dated 23. 3. 1983. The plaintiff has also prayed for declaration that she is entitled to purchase the above property and delivery of vacant possession. The plaintiff has also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the fourth defendant from making any alterations, additions etc. , in the suit property. The plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and their father effected a partition on 23. 8. 1983 under a deed in which it was made clear that if any one of the brothers want to sell the property allotted to them, they should give first preference to the other members of the family. The third respondent wanted to sell the property and issued a notice requesting the applicant to buy the property if he is interested. Since the applicant was not able to buy the property, he sold the same. The first respondent without due information to the others has sold the property to the fourth respondent on 17. 2. 1995. IN view of the pre-emptive clause in the partition deed, the sale in favour of the fourth respondent is null and void. The applicant is prepared to pay the market price for the property. The applicant is ready to deposit the entire money to the credit of the suit. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 have acted collusively in order to defeat the rights of the applicant. The fourth respondent is now trying to make alterations and additions to the property. If he is allowed to do so irreparable loss and damage will be caused to the applicant. Hence, the application.

(2.) INTERIM injunction restraining the respondents from making any alteration in the suit property alone was granted when this application was moved along with the suit.