T PERIASAMY NADAR Vs. T D RAMASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 4 L. P. Appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 19. 4. 1991 passed in A. S. Nos. 427 to 430 of 1981 respectively. Those 4 appeals were preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O. S. Nos. 3811 to 3814 of 1978. All these suits were filed for specific performance of the agreements dated 10. 8. 1977. O. S. No. 3811 of 1978 was filed by t. Periasamy Nadar, T. Murugesan and T. Thangaraj, whereas O. S. No. 3812 of 1978 was filed by T. Murugesan, O. S. No. 3813 of 1978 was filed by T. Thangaraj and o. S. No. 3814 of 1978 was filed by Periasamy. All the three are brothers and they have purchased different bits comprised in the property bearing door number 15/8, situate at Sir Thiagaraya Road , Pondy Bazaar, Madras . All these suits were filed on 17. 4. 1978. The trial court dismissed the suits. So also the learned single judge. Hence, these L. P. As. Thus, the two courts below have refused to grant a decree for specific performance.

(2.) IN the light of the contentions urged, the points that arise for consideration in these appeals are: (i) whether the court below is justified in refusing to grant a decree for specific performance and (ii)whether any other relief could have been granted to the plaintiffs/ appellants.

(3.) IN the case of Vejanla Piothi Raju v. V. B. Raju, (1969)2 S. C. W. R. 200, it has been held that the High Court can interfere in second appeal, only if the discretion is exercised arbitrarily or patently erroneous in law. That case also arose out of a suit for specific performance. Thus, the decision squarely applies to the facts of the case. As the two courts below have, on the facts, held that the defendant has not committed any default in performing his part of the agreements and is justified in cancelling the agreements on the refusal to grant permission by the competent authority under the 1976 Act, we see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised judiciously in refusing to grant the specific relief. IN view of this, we do not consider it necessary to refer to any other contentions.