Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit Nos. 646 and 647 of 1987.
(3.) The Appeal Suit Nos.646 and 647 of 1987 arose out of Civil Suits being, O.S. No. 704 of 1981 and O.S. No. 707 of 1981 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu seeking specific performance in respect of agreements dated 16.07.1980 (Exhibit-A5) and 16.07.1980 (Exhibit-A6) respectively. As per Exhibit-A5 the original Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.704 of 1981 entered into an agreement of sale with original Plaintiff Ponnuswamy Nadar, while Exhibit-A6 was entered into between original Defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 707 of 1981 with original Plaintiff Ponnuswamy Nadar. The rival submissions of the parties including the case of the Plaintiffs in O.S. No.704 of 1981 was set out by the High Court in para nos.2 to 4 of its judgment as under:- 2. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.704 of 1981 is as follows:-(a) Late S.N. Ponnuswamy Nadar entered into an agreement of sale with Kuppathal and Nanjammal, defendants 1 and 2, on 16.7.1980 for the purchase of the suit property and in that suit, the defendants 6 to 8, were later impleaded. Sale consideration was agreed at Rs.1,19,500/- and it was agreed that the sale would be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of agreement. The second item of property which is forming part of the first item of property was delivered in part performance of the contract on 7.11.1980 to the first plaintiff S.N. Ponnuswamy Nadar. On the date of agreement, an advance of Rs.5,000/- was paid. On 7.11.1980, the defendants 1 and 2 namely, Kuppathal and Nanjammal requested the first plaintiff to extend time for completing the sale on the ground that there were standing crops on the field and that was agreed on condition of delivering a portion of the suit property and accordingly, the second item of the suit property was delivered to the first plaintiff on 7.11.1980 and time was extended by 10 months and that was also endorsed in the agreement of sale attested by witnesses. Again on 27.8.1981, further extension of time was granted for a period of 3 months and that was also endorsed in the agreement of sale. On 6.11.1981, a registered letter was sent by the first plaintiff to the defendants 1 and 2 expressing his readiness to purchase the suit property and demanded the execution of the sale deed by defendants 1 and 2 and that was followed by lawyer s notice on 16.11.1981. Meanwhile, the first plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1and 2 fraudulently transferred the suit property in favour of the defendant Nos. 3 and 5, namely, R. Perumal, and R. Vijayalakshmi, in collusion with the first appellant herein. The defendants 2 to 5 attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the second item of the property. Therefore, the suit was filed for relief of specific performance.(b) The first plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and the first plaintiff was having sufficient means for purchasing of stamp paper and other expenses for the due execution of the sale deed and the first plaintiff was willing to deposit the balance sale consideration into the Court. The defendants 1 and 2 are closely related to the defendants 4 and 5. With the intention of defrauding the first plaintiff and to defeat his legitimate rights, a fraudulent sale deed was executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 and 5. During the pendency of the suit the defendants 9 to 12 having full knowledge of the pending litigation entered into a joint venture by colluding with the defendants 1 to 8 and the defendants 9 to 12 claimed to have purchased the suit property from the defendants 3 to 8. The sale deed was alleged to have been executed in favour of the defendants 9 to 12 and nominal document was created with an intention of giving colour to their fictitious and fraudulent transfer and no consideration was paid towards sale deed and the sale in favour of defendants 9 to 12 was also hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Therefore, the defendants 9 to 12 were added as parties to the suit. The first plaintiff Ponnuswamy Nadar died on 22.6.1989, leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his legal heirs and therefore, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are entitled to get the relief of specific performance.3. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending that Ponnuswamy Nadar was a real estate dealer and speculator and he was a neighbour to the defendants and he was also aware of the agreement of sale the defendants 1 and 2 had entered into with the 4 th defendant on 27.3.1979. Thereafter, the first plaintiff created the sale agreement in his favour as if the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to him and therefore, the agreement dated 16.7.1980 projected by the first plaintiff for filing the suit for specific performance was not a genuine document and the defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement of sale with the 4th defendant on 27.3.1979 which was earlier in point of time and therefore, the first plaintiff cannot claim any right even under the agreement of sale. The first plaintiff also filed a criminal case against the defendants 1 and 2 for cheating and the defendants were convicted by the trial court and later acquitted in the appeal. Even in the criminal proceedings, genuineness of the agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980 was challenged by the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, the defendants 1 and 2 are not liable to execute any sale deed and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of specific performance.4. The 4th defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit filed by the plaintiff is vexatious, false and liable to be dismissed. He questioned the truth, validity and genuineness of the agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980 alleged to have been entered into between the first plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 for the sale consideration of Rs.1,19,500/- and also the endorsement made on the agreement of sale and parting of possession of second item of property. The plaintiffs are not in possession of any portion of the suit property and there was no necessity to ask for extension of time to deliver possession and there was no agreement of sale between the first plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. The 4th defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.582 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore for specific performance of his agreement of sale dated 27.3.1979 and the defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance in that suit and under the agreement of sale dated 27.3.1979, an advance of Rs.60,000/- was paid by the fourth defendant and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,75,000/- and possession was handed over to the 4th defendant in part performance of the agreement of sale and therefore, the 4th defendant is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. As the defendants 1 and 2 did not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed, the 4th defendant sent a notice dated 11.6.1981 by registered post calling upon the defendants 1 and 2 to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. As there was no response to the notice, the fourth defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.582 of 1981 for specific performance. In that suit, I.A.No.794 of 1981 was filed for injunction and that was also granted and that would also prove that the 4th defendant was in possession of the suit property. After entering appearance in the suit O.S.No.582 of 1981, the defendants 1 and 2 demanded Rs.20,000/- more and after negotiation, the 4th defendant agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- and thereafter, two sale deeds were executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 and 5 as per the direction of the 4th defendant and thereafter, the first plaintiff in collusion with the defendants 1 and 2 filed the suit to defeat the rights of the defendants 3 to 5. The 4th defendant also issued a paper publication in Malai Malar dated 11.11.1981 informing the public about the sale deed in favour of the defendants 3 & 5. The plaintiff is a very close family friend of the defendants 1 and 2 and all of them colluded and created the agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980 to cause loss to the defendants 3 to 5. The defendants 3 and 5 are bona fide purchasers for value and therefore, they are entitled to get protection and they have no knowledge of the agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980. It is also stated that the agreement of sale in favour of the 4th defendant was earlier in point of time and the sale deed was executed after the alleged agreement of sale dated 16.7.1980 was created in favour of the first plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of specific performance. ;