R ELUMALAI Vs. M SINGARA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.1993 made in O.S.No.14 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram.

(2.) THE appellant herein was the plaintiff in the suit before the Trial Court. THE suit was filed seeking a decree for specific performance of contract of sale of the schedule mentioned property and alternatively for return of the advance amount paid towards balance of sale consideration to the first respondent/D1 with interest and costs and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a cultivating tenant and also for costs of the suit.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant, the sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent was only a sham and nominal document so as to receive the claim of the appellant and therefore, based on the oral agreement the appellant is entitled to get the decree for specific performance of the contract in the Court of law and also for permanent injunction against the respondent as cultivating tenant. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that no dispossession can be made in the suit property unless under due process of law. In support of his contention the appellant has examined himself as P.W.1 apart from examining P.Ws.2 to 4 and marking Exs.A1 to A5 on the file of the Tribunal. The second respondent was examined as D.W.1, apart from marking Exs.B1 to B23. The appellant as P.W.1 has deposed that he has been the cultivating tenant of the suit property and he entered into the oral agreement for sale with the first respondent to purchase the suit property for the sale consideration of Rs.45,500/- and also paid Rs.1,000/- towards part payment of consideration and subsequently paid Rs.10,500/- and hence totally paid Rs.12,500/- to the first respondent. Subsequently, the second respondent entered with the question of enjoyment of the suit property by the appellant and he lodged a complaint before the police and also before the village Panchayatars.