MANI PADAYACHI Vs. RAJU PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent in I. A. No. 2721 of 2006 in O. S. No. 213 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore is the petitioner in this civil revision petition.

(2.) THE first respondent in the revision preferred a suit in O. S. No. 213 of 2006 before the trial Court for a decree of declaration in respect of his title to the suit property and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In the said suit, it is the contention of the plaintiff that he purchased the property as per sale deed dated 17. 2. 1966 and the property was leased out to one Natesa Padayatchi and Jayaraman orally and they cultivated the property for ten years and then executed a registered lease release deed on 18. 5. 1983 and surrendered possession of the property to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant is the owner of the property on the west and he wanted to purchase the property but failed to do so and subsequently the defendants colluded together and attempted to trespass into the suit property on 7. 4. 2006 and accordingly the suit was laid.

(3.) THE first defendant filed his written statement wherein he contended that he has agreed to purchase the property from the plaintiff on a sale consideration of Rs. 1,53,000/- and an agreement was entered into on 11. 5. 1995 and the said document was attested by the son of the plaintiff. In pursuance of the said agreement a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was paid as advance and the balance sum of Rs. 78,000/- was paid in June, 1995 and the property was delivered to the first defendant and accordingly he is stated to be in possession of the property. It is the further contention of the first defendant that out of the said money, the plaintiff purchased another property. Since the parties were very close, the sale deed was not executed, though possession of the property is still with the first defendant from June, 1995 onwards. It is the further contention of the first defendant that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 53a of the Transfer of property Act as he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property in part performance of the contract. The first defendant also expressed his willingness to have the sale deed executed in his favour and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.