VARADARAJULU IYER Vs. ARUMUGHA GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent, against the decree and judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu J. in S.A. No. 1087 of 1953.

(2.) THE suit, to which the appeal relates, was one for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the appellant in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. Since the filing of the appeal, the first respondent died, and respondents 2 to 4 are on record representing her interest. The properties originally belonged to the first respondent, and she along with her husband and children, executed a deed of sale in favour of one Kuppuswami. A few months after the sale, on 11 -11 -1943, Kuppuswami conveyed the properties to the appellant. On 15 -11 -1943, the appellant granted a lease of the properties to respondents 1 and 2 for a period of 5 years on a yearly rent of Rs. 270; the lease imposed certain conditions as to the regular payment of rent for forfeiture of the rights under the lease in default thereof. Two weeks after the grant of the lease, there was an agreement, Ex. A. 1, entered into between the parties under which the appellant agreed to sell to respondents 1 and 2 the properties for a consideration of Rs. 3300. It was stipulated that the agreement should be performed within a period of 7 years. A sum of Rs. 10 was paid towards the price on the date of the agreement and the balance was to be paid at the time f the conveyance. It was also agreed that the purchasers, respondents 1 and 2, would forfeit their rights under the agreement if they did not carry out faithfully the conditions of the lease under which they were then in possession of the properties. The portion relating thereto in Ex. A. 1 runs,

(3.) IT is admitted that the decree relating to the arrears of rent has been paid and satisfied. But the appellant filed an appeal to the District Court, Salem, against the decree for specific performance, That failing, a second appeal was taken to this court. Krishnaswai Nayudu J. who heard the appeal, agreed with the conclusions arrived at by the lower courts, and dismissed it. While so doing, the learned Judge granted leave under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent for a further appeal.