RAMU AMMAL Vs. NATHAMUNI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is as follows: The suit property belonged to Lakshmi Ammal, wife of Maila Maistry father-in-law of first plaintiff. She purchased the same from one Chengamma Raja for a sum of Rs. 500 under sale deed dated 12.9.1943. This property was exchanged with Buchi Ammal, another wife of Maila Maistry under registered exchange deed dated 18.11.1948. Since then Buchi Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the same. She settled the property in favour of her son Sriramulu Maistry, husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 6 and second defendant under settlement deed dated 10.12.1952. Under settlement deed dated 13.8.1958, the husband of first plaintiff and father of defendants 2 to 6 and second defendant gifted the suit property to his parents Buchi Ammal and Maila Maistry who got it in equal moieties. Maila Maistry died in 1969 on which Buchi Ammal his widow and his only son Sriramulu inherited the properties. Buchi Ammal's share was augmented to 3/4th share while Sriramulu got 1/4th share. Sriramulu died on October-November, 1971 leaving the plaintiffs, second defendant and his mother Buchi Ammal. Buchi Ammal's share got augmented to 73/96 share, the fourth plaintiff and second defendant got 9/96 share each and plaintiffs 1 to 3, 5 and 6 got each l/96th share. Buchi Ammal executed a sale deed in favour of defendants on 10.4.1972 for a sum of Rs. 6,000. Prior to, Buchi Ammal and Sriramulu executed a mortgage deed to the defendants on 22.2.1971, which got merged and discharged by the defendants becoming the purchaser of, the property. Notwithstanding the above sale, since the sale by Buchi Ammal transferred only her fractional interest in the properties, the same continues in the possession of the plaintiffs till today. The first defendant a stranger did not take any steps to have his share divided. The first defendant has been recovering money from the first plaintiff and second defendant representing the share of the income. The first plaintiff and second defendant are totally illiterate. The first defendant appears to have got all the payments made by them towards the income endorsed on the discharged mortgage deed as payment towards it. Under the document dated 10.4.1972, the vendor Buchi Ammal has reserved a right to repurchase the property conveyed under it before 4.9.1982 for Rs. 6,000. Buchi Ammal died in or about 1974 and the plaintiffs 3 to'6 and the second defendant are entitled to enforce the right of reconveyance. Since the second defendant has gone to Bombay, he was impleaded as second Defendant for proper adjudication. As the date fixed in the agreement has not been expired and as some of the persons entitled to enforce the agreement are minors, there is no bar of limitation to enforce the agreement of reconveyance. The plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by paying the price fixed. Though the first plaintiff is not entitled in her own right to enforce the contract of reconveyance, she is interested in a portion of the property and therefore, she is added as a formal party. Hence, the suit is filed for specific performance.

(3.) The case of the 1st defendant is as follows: The suit as framed is not maintainable. The suit property belonged to Buchi Ammal and she alone is the absolute owner of the same. The said Buchi Ammal and her son executed a simple mortgage for Rs. 6,000 on 22.2.1971 and the said mortgage is not discharged. The allegation that the mortgage got merged in the sale deed dated 10.4.1972 is not true. The alienation made by Buchi Ammal is for family necessity and therefore, it is binding on the plaintiffs and second defendant. The first plaintiff and second defendant executed lease deed in favour of the defendant for a period of three years on 27.3.1975. The first plaintiff and second defendant committed default in payment of lease amount and therefore, the defendant was forced to file C.T.P. No. 25 of 1978 before the Authorised Officer Kacheepuram for eviction. In the above pro- ceedings, the first plaintiff and second defendant denied the title of the defendant over the suit properties and contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. Ultimately, the above petition was dismissed, on technical grounds. Time fixed for the agreement of reconveyance is over on 9.4.1981. Since they have not taken steps to get reconveyance agreement within time fixed in the document, the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs and second defendant have not deposited the amount of Rs. 6,000 within the time allowed in the document dated 10.4.1972 and it will show that the plaintiffs and second defendant are not ready to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs and second defendant have not exercised their right to get the document of reconveyance within the stipulated time. Hence, the defendant alone is the absolute owner of this property.