S SAROJA Vs. S RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned single judge dated 28.1.1998 made in C.S. No. 638 of 1984 on the file of this Court.

(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the suit property and for damages for use and occupation. The case of the plaintiff is that originally the suit property belonged to one Nalina Sundari. On 30.8.1978, the said Nalina Sundari entered into an agreement with one K. Deivasaheyam for sale of the property for a sum of Rs. 42,000/-. The said Nalina Sundari and Davasahayam have sold the property on 22.3.1983 to the plaintiff for Rs. 1 lakh. The defendants were trespassers in occupation of the property. On 22.7.1983, the plaintiff/appellant issued a notice requesting the defendants to vacate and give vacant possession. The said notice was served on 6.8.1983. The defendants neither vacated the premises nor sent a replay to the notice. Hence, the suit for recovery of possession and damages.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement contending inter alia that in respect of the suit property, on 3.3.1979 the original owner Nalina Sundari as well as Deivasahayam entered into an agreement for sale in favour of the defendants for a sum of Rs. 64,000/-. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendants were put in possession of the property. They are entitled to be in possession under Section 53-A of the transfer of property Act. The sale in favour of the appellant is not a bona fide sale and with out notice of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of recovery possession, as the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as part performance of an agreement dated 3.3.1979 and as such they are entitled to protection available under Section 53-A of the transfer of property Act.