M P KANOI Vs. PALANI PROP M P BUILDERS RESIDING AT V 28 A ZAKARIA COLONY MAIN ROAD CHOOLAIMEDU CHENNAI 24

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three applications have been filed by third party / applicants with prayer to implead themselves as defendants, to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 3. 3. 1997 and also to stay the execution of the decree respectively.

(2.) THE averments made in the applications briefly stated are as follows :- THE applicants R. Subramanian, R. Gopalan, U. P. Suresh babu and Hemavathi are third parties to the suit. THE suit has been filed by the respondents 1 to 5 as plaintiffs impleading the 6th defendant alone as defendant in the suit. THE suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs and the only defendant, namely the 6th respondent remained ex-parte and the suit has been decreed on 3. 3. 1997 by the judgment of this Court, decreeing that the 6th respondent/defendant shall execute the sale deed in favour of respondents 1 to 5 / plaintiffs in the suit.

(3.) THE points :- THEse three applications have been filed by third party interveners to the suit C. S. No. 359 of 1996. C. S. No. 359 of 1996 was filed by the respondents 1 to 5 as plaintiffs impleading the 6th respondent as the sole defendant THE suit has been filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale entered between the respondents 1 to 5 on the one hand and 6th respondent on the other hand. It is not in dispute that the suit property originally belonged to one Basherunnisa and 7 others. THEre is no dispute with regard to the original title of the landlords. THEse plaintiffs, namely the respondents 1 to 5 have entered into agreement of sale with 6th respondent / defendant for purchase of the suit building flats and suit has been filed for specifically enforcing the agreement of sale. 6th respondent / defendant remained ex-parte and by judgment and decree dated 3. 3. 1997, the applicants have been granted a decree for specific performance. THE main contention of these applicants are that they have become lawful owners of the suit property and 6th respondent Palani has no subsisting right in the suit property since as power agent of Basherunnisa and 7 others he has executed sale deeds in favour of these applicants 1 to 4 between 1994 and 1995. THE sale deed in favour of the second respondent R. Gopal is found in page 8 of the typed set of documents filed on behalf of these applicants. As seen from pages 1,3 and 5 the second applicant has paid various sums amounting to Rs. 3,30,800 towards consideration of the sale deed. THE receipts have been issued by the 6th respondent for having received the said amounts on four occasions on different dates between june, 1994 and April, 1995. THE execution of the sale deeds in favour of the second applicant R. Gopalan was on 31. 12. 1994. THE 6th respondent as power agent of basheerunnisa and 7 others has executed the sale deed in favour of the second applicant R. Gopalan.