- (1.) A.S. No. 951 of 1977 is by the plaintiff Muthusamy against the dismissal of his suit O.S. No. 155 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court, Salem. The said suit filed on 14.3.1975 is for specific performance of sale agreement dated 13.2.1975 executed by the 1st defendant Angammal alias Kullammal (hereinafter referred to ?Angammal?) and her step grandson Danapal the 2nd defendant (hereinafter referred to as ?Danapal?) agreeing to sell the suit lands to the plaintiff Muthusamy (hereinafter referred to as ?Muthusamy?)., by the above said Angammal is against the dismissal of her suit O.S. No. 105 of 1976, which was filed earlier on 28.2.1975. The said suit is for a declaration of the said Angammal's right to enjoy the suit lands and for consequential injunction. The suit, lands are same in both the suits. By a common judgment, both the suits were disposed of, as stated above, on 31.8.1977. (Defendants 1 to 6 in O.S. No. 155 of 1975 are also parties in O.S. No. 105 of 1976 but Muthusamy who is plaintiff in O.S. No. 155 of 1975 is not a party in O.S. No. 105 of 1976 and the 6th defendant Pappannan in O.S. No. 105 of 1976 alleged to be the tenant of the suit lands (hereinafter referred to as ?Pappannan?) is not a party in O.S. No. 155 of 1975.)
(2.) CERTAIN undisputed facts are:?The suit lands originally belonged to one Alagirisamy Chettiar who is said to have died pending A.S. No. 951 of 1977. His son Arimuthu Chettiar's third wife is the above said Angammal. His said son died long back on 8.9.1940. The said Arimuthu Chettiar's daughter Gowrammal (through his predeceased second wife) was married to one Subramania Chettiar and their only son is the above said Danapal. Gowrammal also died on 19.4.1953 and her husband Subramania Chetty also died on 30.7.1971. The case in the plaint in O.S. No. 155 of 1975 is as follows: Alagirisamy Chettiar executed a settlement deed dated 17.10.1940 (Ex. A.2) reserving for himself a life interest in the suit lands and providingfor a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5/- to the said Angammal to be paid by the said Arimuthu and himself. Subsequently on 13.6.1945 (Ex. A.3) he cancelled the earlier settlement and executed another settlement deed (Ex. A.4 dated 13.6.1945) reserving for himself life interest in the suit property and providing for life interest thereof for the said Gowrammal and Subramania Chettiar also and giving absolute right thereof to then son Danapal. By the said deed he also provided that the said Gowrammal and Subramania Chettiar should pay Rs. 6/p.m. to Angammal. Later on, at the request of Angammal for enhancing the maintenance, Gowrammal and Subramania Chettiar executed, for themselves and as guardian for their minor daughter, a maintenance deed (Ex. A.5) dated 21.1.1946 by which Angammal was given the suit property to be enjoyed by her for life time, in lieu of maintenance, without right of alienation and providing for reverting back of the property after the life time of Angammal as mentioned in the prior deed. As per the settlement deed dated 13.6.1945, the property should vest with Danapal after the lifetime of Angammal. Angammal was in possession of the property in lieu of maintenance. While so, Angammal and Danapal entered in to a registered safe agreement (Ex. B.1) dated 13.2.1975 with Muthusamy to sell the suit lands to him for Rs. 16,250/per acre. Muthusamy was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. While so, the 3rd defendant Ramasamy Goundar a close associate of Angammal and Danapal being aware of the agreement dated 13.2.1975 and colluding together had prevailed upon Danapal to execute a sale deed in favour of himself and defendants 4 to 6 on 21.2.1975 and immediately thereafter Muthusamy went to the Registrar's office and informed defendants 3 and 4 of the agreement in his favour and asked them not to take any sale deed. But they did not pay any heed. The sale deed in favour of Defendants 3 to 6 are, therefore, not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff had been requesting Angammal and Danapal to measure the suit lands, take the money and execute the sale deed. But they have been evading. Muthusamy caused a notice dated 6.3.1975 to be sent to the defendants. But they did not send any reply nor measure the property and execute the sale deed. Hence the suit for specific performance. Angammal, in her written statement, pleaded as follows: As per the settlement deed dated 17.10.1940 (Ex. A.2) she had been provided a monthly maintenance with a condition that she could take possession of the suit property if there is default in payment. By subsequent arrangement, the suit properties were given to her for her life time in lieu of maintenance. Accordingly she is in possession. According to the registered agreement dated 13.2.1975 she and Danapal agreed to sell the suit properties to Muthusamy. She is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. But at the instigation and influence of the 3rd defendant, Danapal was made to execute the sale deeds in favour of defendants 3 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as ?contesting defendants?). They are not valid Danapal adopted the written statement of the contesting defendants therein and pleaded as followings: The sale deeds in favour of the contesting defendants, all dated 21.2.1975 (Ex. B.25 to B.28) are in pursuance of an earlier agreement dated 8.5.1974 (Ex. B.24 in favour of 5th defendant-Mani is executed by Danapal himself agreeing to sell the suit properties to the 5th defendant at Rs. 15,000/per acre). Angammal is not entitled to the property. She was aware of the said agreement dated 8.5.1974. Muthusamy who is a neighbour also knows about the execution of the said agreement as and when it was executed. Muthusamy used the influence of Angammal over Danapal and made the latter sign the agreement dated 13.2.1975 representing to him that Angammal had a right in the property. The agreement in favour of Muthusamy (Ex. B.1) is not a true one but nominal one. Subsequently Danapal came to understand that the agreement dated 13.2.1975 was not valid and the agreement dated 8.5.1974 alone was valid. So he executed the above said 4 sale deeds on 212.1975 in favour of the contesting defendants. It is said that the 3rd defendant died pending appeal and defendants 4 to 6 are his children. The written statement of contesting defendants ran as follows: Danapal became the absolute owner of the suit property on the death Gowrammal and Subramaniam, Angammal had no interest in the property and she has not been in possession of the same. Subramaniam alone was in possession of the suit property and he leased the same to the above said Papannan, who continues to be the tenant. Danapal executed the abovesaid agreement on 8.5.1974 in favour of the 5th defendant R. Mani, and the plaintiff being aware of the said agreement concocted the alleged agreement dated 13.2.1975. The sale deeds in favour of the contesting defendants were duly executed and registered. The plaintiff did not come to the registrar office and object to the registration of the sale deeds.
(3.) IN O.S. No. 105 of 1976 (which was originally O.S. No. 250 of 1975) Angammal is the plaintiff and she pleaded as follows:The suit lands had been given to her for enjoyment for life, in lieu of main tenance under the registered document dated 21.1.1946 (Ex. A.5). That deed itself is in renewal of pre-existing right of maintenance, given by his father-in-law Alagirisamy. Only after the death of Angammal, the suit lands have to revert back to the male heirs of the settlors. As per the settlement deed she is in possession'of the same, by cultivat ing the property with the help of servants. The other pleas are more or less same as here plea in the other suit. Likewise the contesting defendants in this suit have also set up practically the same pleas as in the other suit. Danapal also has taken the same pleaf as in the other suit. Papannan contends that he is a tenant under Subramaniam Chetty, the father of the 1st defendant, for over 20 years and that Angammal owns no interest in the property nor she is in possession of the property. On these pleadings, the Court below has come to the following conclusions: 1. The registered sale agreement, Ex. B.1 dated 13.2.1975 in favour of Muthusamy is true and valid. But only after the sale agreement Ex. B.24 dated 83.1974 in favour of 5th defendant-R. Mani, Ex. B.1 was executed and that too under the circumstances stated by Danapal in O.S. No. 155 of 1975. 2. Angammal is not entitled to suit property and she is also not in possession of the same. 3. The sale deeds Exs. B.25 to B.28 all dated 21.2.1975 in favour of the contesting defendants are valid and they are bona fide purchasers for value in pursuance of the sale' agreement dated 8.5.1974, Ex. B.24. 4. So the plaintiff in O.S. No. 155 of 1975 is not entitled to the relief of specific performance and Angammal is not entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for by her. 5. The claim of 6th defendant in O.S. No. 105 of 1976 that he is the cultivating tenant cannot be gone into in this action though he is in possession of the suit property., So, O.S. No. 155 of 1975 and 105 of 1976 were both dismissed. 9. A. These appeals were heard earlier by a Bench of this Court and it was then felt that the Court below had not satisfactorily disposed of the cases. Hence the matter was remanded back to the trial Court by judgment dated 26.4.1984. However, against the said remand order, the contesting defendants preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1326 and 1327 of 1988 and the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 8.4.1988 has held that this Court should have disposed of the appeals itself on merits instead of remanding the cases back to the trial Court. Hence these appeals are heard afresh and this common judgment is rendered. ;