SWAMIKANNU Vs. SUYAMBU NATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 24. 4. 1995 in A. S. No. 63 of 1993, passed by the learned District judge, Nagapattinam reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 30. 11. 1992, made in o. S. No. 188 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. The defendant is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE respondents filed the suit seeking for a decree directing the defendant to deliver pos"session of the suit properties and to pay damages, past and present, till the delivery of possession. THE case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties belonged to their father Meivel Chettiar, who leased out the same to the defen"dant's father Veerappan and he was cultivating the same till his death and afterwards, his son viz. , the defendant was cultivating the lands and he expressed his willingness to the plaintiffs to purchase the suit properties and thereupon, a written agreement dated 19. 6. 1981, signed by the first plaintiff and the defendant came into existence and the sale price was fixed at rs. 9,750/- and an advance of Rs. 750/- was paid on the date of agreement to the plaintiffs by the defendant and the agreement further provided that the balance of Rs. 9,000/- had to be paid on or before 31. 10. 1981 and liquidated damages of rs. 1,000/- was fixed by either side on default and the defendant was also put in posses"sion of the properties. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that though they were ready and will"ing to perform their part of contract, the defen"dant failed to perform his part despite repeated demands by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs caused a lawyer's notice, dated 16. 11. 1988, calling upon the defendant to perform his part and pay the balance of sale price and also the liquidated damages provided in the agreement and the defendant received the notice, but did not comply with the demand and the agree"ment stood cancelled under law. According to the plaintiffs, the tenancy rights if any available to the defendant prior to the sale agree"ment, got merged in the agreement and the de"fendant can no longer claim any tenancy rights in the suit properties and his possession, after 30. 11. 1988, is not lawful and he is liable to surrender possession and pay damages for use and occupation.

(3.) THE following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration. 1. Whether the lower Appellate Court has erred in holding that the sale agreement dated 19. 6. 1981 puts an end to the tenancy rights of the appellant in the absence of sur"render of tenancy by the appellant. 2. Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in following the judgments reported in (1959) 1 MLJ 301 and (1990) 2 MLJ 32 when those decisions are relating to a case in which the sale agreement was not cancelled as in this ease. 3. Whether the lower Appellate Court tailed to note that the cancellation of the sale agreement will automatically restore the original tenancy rights of the appellant over the suit properties in the absence of surren"der of tenancy by the appellant at the time of sale agreement. 4. Whether the lower Appellate Court tailed to appreciate the principles laid down in AIR 1984 SC 1782 and also (1988) 1 MLJ 140 regarding the subsistence of tenancy in the absence of recitals regarding surrender of tenancy in written documents. 5. Whether the sale agreement entered by the first respondent herein will bind the sec"ond respondent and consequently affect the landlord and tenant relationship between the second respondent and the appellant.