Saradamani Kandappan vs S. Rajalakshmi & Ors

2. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are respectively the son, daughter and husband of first respondent. The first respondent is the owner of Survey Nos. 13, 14 and 15, the second respondent is the owner of lands bearing Survey Nos. 16 and 18 and the third respondent is the owner of Survey Nos. 19 and 20, all situated in Chettiaragaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District in all measuring 24 acres 95 cents. The said lands along with the trees, wells, pump-houses, farm godowns, perimeter fence and some furniture, are together referred to as the `schedule properties'.

Respondents 1 to 4 entered into agreement of sale dated 17.1.1981 with the appellant herein for sale of the schedule properties, at a price of Rs.15,000 per acre (in all Rs.3,74,250 rounded off to Rs.3,75,000). On the date of the agreement, Rs.1,00,000 was paid as advance to respondents, which was duly acknowledged in the agreement. Clauses 3, 3 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 15 of the agreement which are relevant for our purposes are extracted below :-

"3. The execution of the sale deeds shall depend upon the party of the second part getting satisfied regarding the title to the land, so also the nil encumbrance.

4. The mode of payment of the balance of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) shall be as under :

5. If however any of the above mentioned dates are subsequently declared as holidays then the next immediate working day shall be the day of the payment.

7. The sale deed shall be executed at the convenience of the party of the second part as and when she wants them to be executed either in her name or in the name of her nominee or nominees.

12. If the party of the second part finds the titles of the properties herein above mentioned to be unsatisfactory or unacceptable, the party of the first part shall be put on notice revealing her intention not to conclude the sale and in such event if the party of the first part, fails to satisfy the party of the second part regarding the title the party of the first part shall pay to the party of the second part within three months the date there of all the monies advanced by the party of the second part till then.

8. This brought forth a second reply dated 4.9.1981 from the appellant, reiterating the averments in the reply notice dated 7.8.1981.

24) from respondents 1 to 3 through the fourth respondent and that she was in possession thereof and was cultivating them. The notice further stated that pending completion of documentation, she had learnt that respondents were trying to resell the properties and issued a warning that if any third party enters into any agreement with the owners, they will be doing so at their own risk, and the same will not bind her. This public notice brought forth two responses. The first was a notice dated 14.11.1981 from one Gulecha stating that the documents relating to Sy.

14. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant filed three original side appeals. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the said appeals by common judgment dated 19.6.2002, affirming the 12 judgment of the trial court. The Division Bench however directed the respondents to repay Rs.3,50,000 (i.e. Rs.2,25,000 paid to defendants 1 to 3 and Rs.1,25,000 paid to defendant No. 4) with interest at 9% per annum for the period during which the appellant was not acting as caretaker till the complete payment was made. While disposing of the said three appeals, the Division Bench also dismissed three applications. The first (CMP No.2888/1996) was an application filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note the existing condition and physical features of the suit property. The second (CMP No.17401/1997) was an application filed by the appellant's son to implead him as a party alleging that the substantial part of the amounts paid to defendant came from him.

Re: Question (iii)

Re : Question No. (iv)

Re : Contempt Petition (C) Nos.28-29/2009 :

2001 (8) SCC 104]. Mere execution of an MOU, agreeing to enter into an agreement to sell the property, does not amount to encumbering a property. Receiving advances or amounts in pursuance of an MOU would not also amount to creating an encumbrance. The MOUs said to have been executed by respondents 1 to 3 provide that agreements of sale with mutually agreed terms and conditions will be entered between the parties after clearance of all pending or future litigations. Therefore the MOUs are not even agreements of sale. In these circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the respondents have created any encumbrances or violated the order dated 11.11.2002. Hence, these contempt petitions are liable to be rejected.

51. We make it clear that nothing stated in this order on the contempt petitions will be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the dispute between Jeevanandam and respondents 1 to 3, and 53 necessarily any pending litigation between them will have to be decided on the merits of the respective cases.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7254-7256 OF 2002

The finding of the learned Single Judge that the sum of Rs.1,25,000 paid by the plaintiff to the fourth defendant was also the consideration for the movables in addition to the consideration of Rs.3,75,000 under the agreement of sale, was not been challenged by the defendants. In the circumstances, the Division Bench was justified in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,50,000 with interest. These appeals are therefore liable to be dismissed.

Conclusion :

55. In view of the foregoing the appeals and contempt petitions are disposed of as follows: