Venkitalakshmi vs K. Raju And Ors.

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.

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.

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.

the defendants 1 and 2. The 4 th 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 4 th 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 4 th 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 4 th 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 Civil Appeal Nos………..of 2019 @ SLP(C) Nos.23648-23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.

Thereafter, the defendants 1 to 5 sold the property to the defendants 6 and 7 and the defendants 1 to 5 have no right to sell the property after having entered into an agreement of sale with the first plaintiff on 16.7.1980 and the sale deed in favour of the defendants 6 and 7 are also not binding on the first plaintiff. The defendants 6 and 7 in collusion with the defendants 1 to 5 created sale deed in their favour. The first plaintiff was also ready to deposit sale consideration, if so directed by the court. The defendants 1 to 5 are closely related to the defendants Civil Appeal Nos………..of 2019 @ SLP(C) Nos.23648-23649 of 2015 Venkitalakshmi vs. K. Raju and others.

6 and 7 and, in order to defraud the first plaintiff and to defeat the legitimate right of the first plaintiff, the sale deeds were executed in favour of the defendants 6 and 7. The defendants 8 to 11 claimed to have purchased the suit properties from the defendants 6 and 7 and those sale deeds in favour of the defendants 8 to 11 are nominal documents and they have not come into force and there was no passing of consideration and as the properties were alleged to have been conveyed to the defendants 8 to 11, they were also made as parties. The first plaintiff died and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 were impleaded as legal representatives and they were also entitled for specific performance and injunction in respect of item 2 of the property.

6. The Defendants in the above-mentioned O.S.Nos.704 and 707 of 1981 being aggrieved filed Appeal Suit Nos.646 and 647 of 1987 in the High Court. The High Court, by its judgment and order, presently under Appeal, allowed both the Appeal Suit Nos. 646 and 647 of 1987. On the basis of the submissions advanced by the Counsel, the following points were framed for consideration:-

7. The High Court answered first three points against the Plaintiff and held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance.

are not in any way incorrect to justify interference in jurisdiction under Article 136(1) of the Constitution.

10. However, the fact remains that money amounting to Rs.5,000/-

was parted with as early as in July 1980. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, ends of justice would be met if the appellants are given some compensation over and above return of the earnest money. We, therefore, direct the respondents to make over a sum of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) in lieu of return of earnest to the present appellants within eight weeks from today.

11. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the appeals stand dismissed. No costs.

August 13, 2019.