SHANMUGAM Vs. ARUMUGA PULAVAR (DIED) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been preferred by the same person i.e., the plaintiff in O.S. No. 526 of 1980, out of which the first second appeal arises and the third defendant in O.S. No. 53 of 1983, out of which the latter second appeal arises.

(2.) The appellant filed O.S. No. 526 of 1980 for redemption and for future mesne profits against one Arumuga Pularvar and three others, while Arumuga Pulavar, the first defendant in O.S. No. 526 of 1980, filed O.S. No. 53 of 1983 against the third defendant in O.S. No. 526 of 1980, for injunction restraining him from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. As according to him, he was in possession of the suit property by virtue of the doctrine of part performance and also for specific performance.

(3.) The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Sadagopachariar. He othied the suit property in favour of one Thangamani Ammal, wife of the first defendant -Arumuga Pulavar, On 22.2.1958 for Rs. 300. Thangamani Ammal died leaving the first defendant and the second defendant her husband and son as her heirs. The mortgagor Sadagopachariar died leaving third defendant as his only son. The fourth defendant is the son of the third defendant. Plaintiff purchased the property from the third and fourth defendants on 31.8.1979. As per the sale, he was directed to discharge the othi dated 22.2.1958 in favour of Thangamani Ammal. After his purchase, he sent a notice to deliver possession, as according to him, the othi deed became discharged under Act 40 of 1979. But the first defendant sent a reply setting up an agreement of sale dated 2.12.1974 in his favour. Since the plaintiff had no knowledge about the agreement, he filed O.P. No. 3 of 1984 for redemption. After the dismissal of the said petition, he filed the present suit for redemption and for future mesne profits, unleading the defendants 3 and 4 as necessary parties. Inspite of the lawyer's notice, the defendants refused to deliver possession of the suit property, after receipt of othi amount. Hence, the plaintiff filed the above suit.