VEERAMALAI VANNIAR Vs. THADIKARA VANNIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of four appeals arises out of four suits which were tried and disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. Appn. No. 199 of 1962 is against the decision in O. S. 29 of 1960, the evidence in which, by consent of parties, was treated as evidence in the other suits. It will be therefore convenient to refer to the rank of the parties and the controversy in that suit, as the decision therein has to simply follow in the other three appeals.

(2.) THE appellant in A. S. 199 of 1962 (hereafter referred to as the appellant) filed the suit, O. S. 29 of 1960, claiming specific performance of an agreement of sale of the suit properties, of an extent of about 11/2 velies, situate in the village Nala uthamanallur, Tanjore Taluk. The plaintiff's brother is the first defendant and the latter's wife is the second defendant. Minor defendants 1 and 2. Ammaniammal, the sixth defendant, to whom the suit properties belonged died pending suit and on her death her only daughter and legal representatives was impleaded as the seventh defendant. The plaintiff's case was that in Avani 1956, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the 6th defendant to sell the suit properties, about 11/2 velies in extent for a sum of Rs. 9000, that under that agreement the sale transaction was to be completed by the next 30th of Chitrai, i. e. , April 1957, that on 19-9-1956, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1000 towards part payment of the price and that the same was evidenced by a document signed and passed by one Thiruvengadam, the son-in-law and agent of Ammaniammal and in that document all the details of the agreement of sale have been embodied, viz. , the price fixed at Rs. 9000 the payment and receipt of Rs. 1000 the balance of Rs. 8000 to be paid before the next Chitrai i. e. , April, 1957, and the sale was to be completed. The plaintiff's further case was that on 30-10-1956, this thiruvenkadam, the agent of Ammaniammal wrote a letter urging upon the plaintiff to complete the transaction without further delay and not to wait till chitrai, at the same time warning the plaintiff that the first defendant the plaintiff's brother, was making efforts to purchase the properties. The plaintiff was obliged to file the present suit as he subsequently discovered that at the instance of the first defendant, his brothers Ammaniammal had executed three sale deeds all dated 29-12-1956, comprising various items of properties including the suit properties, the vendees under the sale deeds, being the first defendant's minor children, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants. In addition to the other evidence in the case, both oral and documentary, the plaintiff mainly relied upon the two letters given by Thiruvengadam on behalf of Ammaniammal, the vendor to the plaintiff. The contesting defendants resisted the suit on the ground inter alia that no such agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the sixth defendant, that the two letters alleged to have been written by Thiruvengadam purporting to be on behalf of the vendor Ammaniammal, are ante-dated and concocted documents and that in any event the defendants were bona fide transferees in good faith and for value paid without any knowledge of the alleged agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE plaintiff is admittedly in possession of the suit properties and in this suit, whilei claiming specific performance he had deposited in the trial Court the balance of the price due by him. The other three suits were filed by the three minor sons of the first defendant for possession of the suit properties to the extent covered by the respective sale deeds in favour of each of the defendants which, naturally was resisted by this Veeramalai, the plaintiff in O. S. 29 of 1960, and the sole defendant in all these suits on the basis of the aforesaid agreement of sale. The learned Subordinate Judge negatived the contentions of the plaintiff and dismissed his suit and following upon that, decreed the other suits. hence this batch appeals by this Veeramalai for enforcement of his rights under the agreement of sale.