VELLAIYAN Vs. NOOKKAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in O. S. No. 797 of 1980, on the file of District Munsifs Court , Tirunelveli, is the appellant.

(2.) SUIT filed by the respondent was one for recovery of property on the following allegations:- The property belonged to one Chellam Iyer and others, under whom the appellant was admittedly a tenant. While he was enjoying the property as a lessee, he entered into an agreement for sale, agreeing to purchase the property for Rs. 8,750 and also paid an advance of Rs. 101. A term of nine months was provided for completion of the contract. But the sale could not materialise. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the property. It is the case of the plaintiff that when the defendant entered into an agreement for sale, his tenancy right also came to an end and the same could not revive after the agreement had lapsed. Possession of the defendant, therefore, is not lawful, or at any rate, not as a tenant. Plaintiff, on the basis of his title, is entitled to recover the property.

(3.) AN agreement for sale does not create any interest in land is clear from the provisions of S. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff has no case that pursuant to the agreement, possession passed to the defendant or there was a change in the nature of his possession. Plaintiff must have a case that pursuant to the agreement for sale, defendant was put in possession or the nature of his possession changed in part performance of the contract. Unless that is pleaded and proved, there cannot be any question of determination of earlier possession or character of earlier possession.