S RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. R M SUBBIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OSA Nos.207 of 2008 and 14 and 15 of 2009 preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 11 of O.S. Rules against the order of this Court made in Review Application Nos.2251 to 2253 of 2003 in Application Nos.1873, 1874 and 2481 of 2002 in E.P.No.19 of 2000 dated 18.12.2007.OSA No.325 of 2008 preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order of this Court in Application No.3024 of 1999 in C.S.No.1586 of 1988 dated 20.11.2007.Common JudgmentM. Chockalingam, J.This judgment shall govern these six appeals in OSA Nos.339 and 340 of 2003, 207 and 325 of 2008 and 14 and 15 of 2009.

(2.) OSA Nos.339 and 340 of 2003 challenge a common order of dismissal made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Application Nos.3023 and 3025 of 1999 whereby the appellant herein who was the defendant in C.S.No.1586 of 1988 sought for a direction to the respondent/plaintiff to hand over title deeds in respect of the suit property within the stipulated time and also to direct the plaintiff to receive a sum of Rs.3,87,500/- from the defendant subject to such adjustment that may be permissible in law having regard to the occupation of the ground floor of the property by the plaintiff, while the appellant/defendant aggrieved over the order of the learned Single Judge made in Review Application Nos.2251 to 2253 of 2003, has brought forth OSA Nos.207 of 2008 and 14 and 15 of 2009. The appellant has also brought forth OSA No.325 of 2008 challenging an order of the learned Single Judge in Application No.3024 of 1999 seeking to rescind the contract dated 2.11.1986.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the conduct of the respondent in the payment of balance of sale consideration that the respondent had not taken any steps for the payment of balance of sale consideration ever since from the date of the decree of the trial Court namely 7.12.1995 that the respondent has also not cared to make any attempt to pay the balance of sale consideration that though the appellant has specifically raised a ground in OSA 250/96, even after the disposal of OSA Nos.250 and 251/96, the respondent has not taken care to deposit the amount that the appellant has already raised a plea of rescinding the contract in the trial Court itself that the Court has clearly observed that the appellant had filed the application for rescinding the contract, and the same was not considered by the trial Court that the appellant had sought for stay of the execution proceedings in A.No.4571 of 2000 that the respondent was voluntarily directed by the Court to deposit the balance of sale consideration even in the absence of any specific request by the respondent in that regard that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that 90% of the amount was paid by the respondent that the same was untenable in view of clause 8 of the agreement that the respondent had not even made a single attempt for the past four years to make the payment of the balance of sale consideration that it was not correct to state that in pursuance of the order of the Court, the respondent has deposited the balance of sale consideration that the very same applications in A.Nos.3023 and 3025 of 1999 along with an application No.3024 of 1999 were taken up after the Division Bench order dated 20.10.2000 that it would be quite clear that the Court was prejudiced by its earlier order that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the applications again without appreciation of the averments and contentions properly and even after the matter was remitted back to be reheard that the Court was in error in directing the respondent herein for payment of the balance of sale consideration when the application for rescinding the contract was pending and that it is not correct to state that the respondent had immediately deposited the balance of sale consideration after the order in A.No.4571/2000 dated 29.11.2000, which is untenable.