DHANAPAL Vs. CHANDRASEKHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN S.A.No.1512 of 2000: This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, Poonamallee, dated 28.4.2000, in the First appeal in A.S.No,53 of 1998, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif Court, dated 31.8.1998, in O.S.No,272 of 1996. PRAYER IN S.A.No.1647 of 2000: This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, Poonamallee, dated 28.4.2000, in the First appeal in A.S.No,54 of 1998, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif Court, dated 31.8.1998, in O.S.No,338 of 1996. PRAYER IN S.A.No.1651 of 2000: This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, Poonamallee, dated 28.4.2000, in the First appeal in A.S.No,55 of 1998, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif Court, dated 31.8.1998, in O.S.No,337 of 1996.) All the three second appeals have been taken up together for final hearing by the consent of the counsels, as they involve common issues. In view of the fact that the respondent had died, his legal heirs had been brought on record, as sole respondent by orders of this Court, dated 23.8.2009 and 9.10.2009. S.A.No.1512 of 2000: This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.4.2000, made in A.S.No,53 of 1998, on the file of the Sub Judge, Poonamallee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1998, made in O.S.No,272 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

(2.) THE defendant in the suit, in O.S.No,272 of 1996, is the appellant in the present second appeal. THE respondent in the present second appeal was the plaintiff in the said suit.

(3.) WHILE Hari Govindan was making arrangements to execute the decree, the defendant had been requesting for time to vacate the property, to avoid execution of the decree. WHILE so, the defendant, who is related to the plaintiff, had persuaded the plaintiff to purchase the property in question from Hari Govindan. The defendant had also requested the plaintiff to permit him to continue his occupation of the property as a tenant under the plaintiff. On such persuasion, the plaintiff had purchased the property from Hari Govindan, under a registered sale deed, dated 12.8.1977.