MUTHUGAN Vs. R NARASIMHA ACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants in this second appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the suit agreement. According to the plaintiff the suit properties belonged to the 1st defendant and he was the owner thereof. He executed an agreement of sale dated 13. 9. 1982 in favour of the plaintiff for sum of Rs. 6500/= and received an advance of Rs. 500/= on the same date of agreement. As per the terms of the said agreement the plaintiff should pay Rs. 1500/= in October 1982, and the balance of Rs. 4,500/= on or before 9. 5. 1983 and that upon receipt of the amount aforesaid, the 1st defendant has to execute the sale deed conveying the suit properties to the plaintiff and put her in possession thereof. In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff offered to pay Rs. 1500/= even prior to october 1982 i. e. , 21. 9. 1982, but the first defendant stated that he would receive the same along with Rs. 4 ,500 /= to be paid later and that only Rs. 500/= alone may be paid to him on that date for his immediate necessity and received Rs. 500/= on 21. 9. 1982 and had endorsed the payment on the back of the agreement. THE plaintiff offered to pay the balance of Rs. 5500/= even in October 1982 itself and wanted the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed but he evaded to receive the amount and postponed the receipt of the consideration and execution of the sale deed from day to day. Later the plaintiff came to know that that he had negotiated and sold the properties to defendants 2 to 5 represented by their guardian Chinnakannu alias Lingammal , belonging to the same village where the properties are situate and where the first defendant also resides. THE plaintiff had always been ready and prepared to pay the balance of the sale consideration of Rs. 5500/= to the first defendant and had also offered to pay the same to him on so many days during the months of October and November 1982 itself. THE first defendant without disclosing the fact of his having sold away the properties t o defendants 2 to 5 on 17. 11. 1982 with mala fide intention and ulterior motive had been simply postponing and evading to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed. THE period for the payment of the sale consideration as per the sale agreement is till 9. 5. 1983. But even during the subsistence of the said agreement, the first defendant had sold the suit properties to defendants 2 to 5 on 17. 11. 1982 itself. THE suit agreement is well known to the guardian mother of the defendants 2 to 5 and she had also been told about that by the villagers. As such the sale by the defendants 2 to 5 is void and invalid as against the plaintiff and not binding on her and cannot affect her rights to enforce the agreement of sale, the subsequent vendeeds namely the defendants 2 to 5 are bound by the suit agreement and are liable under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. THE defendants are therefore liable to receive the balance of consideration of rs. 5500/= and execute the sale deed conveying the suit properties in faovur of the plaintiff and to put her in possession of the same in pursuance of such sale.

(3.) THE defendants 2 to 5 filed a common written statement in the line of the contents in the written statement filed by the first defendant besides contending that the sale by them after the revocation of the suit agreement on 13. 9. 1982 is valid in law, and they have spent Rs. 5000/= in improving the lands and in any case they are entitled to claim equities in respect of the said improvements.