Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
3. Appeal in A.S.No.446 of 2023 is filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.19 of 2015 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.
4. The plaint averments in O.S.No.20 of 2010 are briefly as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:48:47 am ) A.S.Nos.555 of 2022, 445 & 446 of 2023 4.1. The suit properties are situated in Mulligrampattu village near Nellikuppam in Cuddalore District. The Plaintiffs 1 to 6 and the Defendant-1 are the legal heirs of K.M.Hanifa. The suit properties were originally purchased by K.M.Hanifa through a registered sale deed dated 07.04.1969 for valuable consideration and he was in possession and enjoyment of the properties till his death. The revenue records – patta, chitta and adangal are in the name of K.M.Hanifa. K.M.Hanifa died intestate on 21.01.1997 leaving behind him, his wife/first Plaintiff, the sons and daughters/Plaintiff 2 to 6 and the first Defendant as legal heirs. While so, the Plaintiffs came to know that the second Defendant had instituted a suit in O.S.No.34 of 2009 against the first Defendant as though the first Defendant had entered into a sale agreement deed with the second Defendant to sell the suit properties to the second Defendant. The suit in O.S.No. 34 of 2009 was alleged to have filed seeking relief of specific performance of contract for sale against the first Defendant by the second Defendant. The Plaintiffs 1 to 6 are not parties to the said sale agreement deed. The alleged sale agreement deed will not bind the Plaintiffs 1 to 6. The second Defendant attempted to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs were forced to file the suit in O.S.No. 252 of 2009 seeking declaration that the suit properties belong to the Plaintiffs and the first Defendant and also the Plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2010 seeking partition. The first Plaintiff/wife of K.M.Hanifa is entitled to 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:48:47 am ) A.S.Nos.555 of 2022, 445 & 446 of 2023 share, sons of K.M.Hanifa are entitled to 2/3rd shares and the daughters are entitled to 1/3 share. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are collectively entitled to 58/72 shares. The first Defendant is entitled to 14/72 share. Therefore, the Plaintiffs 1 to 6 seeking preliminary decree for partition of their 58/72 shares. The first Defendant remains ex parte in the suit.
25. The learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 6 Mr. R. Rajavelan, submitted his argument on behalf of the Respondents. The Appellant herein as Plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.34 of 2009 before the learned Sub Judge, Panruti against Nazeer Ahamed alone (Respondent in A.S.No.446 of 2023 and Respondent 7 in A.S.No.445 of 2023 also in A.S.No.555 of 2022). The suit in O.S. No. 34 of 2009 was filed by the Appellant herein as Plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract based on an unregistered agreement for sale https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:48:47 am ) A.S.Nos.555 of 2022, 445 & 446 of 2023 dated 06.12.2006 in respect of 3 acres 44 cents of landed property with 7.5 HP motor pump sets and bore-well situated at Mulligrampattu village near Nellikuppam in Cuddalore District. As per the plaint averments in O.S.No. 34 of 2009, the suit property belongs to Nazeer Ahamed who had entered into unregistered sale agreement for sale on 06.12.2006 with Plaintiff Ramu for Rs.2,50,000/-. The Plaintiff had paid Rs.2,30,000/- as advance. Nazeer Ahamed agreed to execute the sale deed after receipt of Rs.20,000/- within a period of 2 years. Also he agreed that he being the elder son of K.M.Hanifa, and on behalf of other family members, to execute the sale deed and major portion of sale consideration having been accepted, possession of the property was handed over to the Plaintiff. Nazeer Ahamed filed written statement denying execution of agreement for sale but remained ex parte before the trial Court. Having come to know about the same, the mother and siblings of Nazeer Ahamed, the Respondents 1 to 6 in the Appeal Suit Nos.445 of 2023 and 555 of 2022 had filed the suit in O.S. No.20 of 2010 before the learned first Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, for partition and separate possession of their 58/72 share of the property from an extent of 3 acres 44 cents against Nazeer Ahamed, 7th Respondent in Nos.445 of 2023 and 555 of 2022 and the sole Respondent in A.S.No.446 of 2023. The mother and siblings of Nazeer Ahamed claimed that they were not aware that Nazeer Ahamed had entered into sale agreement with the Plaintiff Ramu. Therefore, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:48:47 am ) A.S.Nos.555 of 2022, 445 & 446 of 2023 the claim that it is a fraudulent transaction and it will not bind them. Further, the Respondents 1 to 6 in this Appeal content that the suit property an extent of 3 acres 44 cents comprised in S.No.25/1 and S.No.25/19 belong to their father K.M.Hanifa by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 07.04.1969 executed in his favour by Ganapathi Pillai. K.M.Hanifa was in possession and enjoyment of the said property till his death by effecting mutation of revenue records. K.M.Hanifa died intestate on 21.09.1997 leaving behind him his widow, three sons and 3 daughters as legal heirs, the Respondents 1 to 6 and Nazeer Ahamed as 7th Respondent in the appeals in A.S.Nos.445 of 2023 and 555 of 2022. According to the Mohammedan Law, the window takes 1/8 share and the remaining 7/8 shares taken by 3 sons and 3 daughters. The sons taking 2 shares of the daughters share. Therefore, the Plaintiffs together entitled to 58/12 share. Nazeer Ahamed is entitled to 14/72 share. Nazeer Ahamed remained ex parte in the partition suit also. The only contesting Defendant was Ramu. Ramu had claimed that Nazeer Ahamed had been looking after and managing the property on behalf of other family members. Therefore, the Plaintiff Ramu claims that he had entered into sale agreement dated 17.07.1997 where he undertook to execute sale deed with all other co-sharers and it could not be completed. Therefore, subsequent sale agreements were executed on following dates 15.03.1999, 11.10.2004 and yet another agreement for sale dated 06.12.2006 between them. It is further contended that on the strength of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:48:47 am ) A.S.Nos.555 of 2022, 445 & 446 of 2023 agreement for sale dated 06.12.2006, the Plaintiff Ramu claims to have filed the suit for specific performance and the suit was filed by the mother and other siblings of Nazeer Ahamed at the instigation of Nazeer Ahamed.
47. The rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in (i) 2023-1-L.W. 777 [U.Venkatesan vs. Susila & Others]; (ii) MANU/TN/1621/2022 [Thengapattanam Educational and Service Trust vs. Kose Mohumed and Others]; (iii) (2020) 19 SCC 80 [ B. Santhoshamma and another vs. D. Sarala and another] and (iv) 2008-1-L.W. 696 [K.V. Narasimhan (died), etc and others vs. S.Salammal & another] will not be applicable to the facts of this case because there is evidence in the cross https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:48:47 am ) A.S.Nos.555 of 2022, 445 & 446 of 2023 examination of the 6th Plaintiff H.Sadiq Basha as D.W-1 in O.S.No.20 of 2010 that the Plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 2015 Ramu was a tenant cultivating the lands prior to the death of K.M.Hanifa and till the date of trial as a tenant. Therefore, he has personal knowledge of the details of the family of K.M.Hanifa. While so, if he has bona fide intention of purchasing the property, he ought to have entered into agreement of sale with all the legal heirs of K.M.Hanifa, the Plaintiffs in O.S.No. 20 of 2010. Earlier to that, he had obtained and ex parte decree for specific performance of contract against the sole Defendant Nazeer Ahamed, one of the legal heirs of the deceased K.M.Hanifa and the elder son of K.M.Kanifa. As per the evidence, Ex.A-4 dated 17.07.1997 is the earliest agreement entered into with Nazeer Ahamed. Ex.A-5 the same sale agreement renewed on 15.03.1999. Ex.A-6 again the same sale agreement renewed as on 11.10.2004. Ex.A-7 is the suit filed by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2010 for injunction against the Plaintiff Ramu before the learned District Munsif in O.S.No. 252 of 2009. Therefore, Ex.A-4 to Ex.A-6 are the prior sale agreement deeds entered into with the sole Defendant in O.S.No.19 of 2015 by the Plaintiff Ramu who also happens to be the tenant of the of the family of the deceased K.M.Hanifa. Ex.A-1 is the latest sale agreement date 06.12.2006 which is pressed into service in O.S.No.19 of 2015. When the Plaintiffs in O.S.No.20 of 2010 came to know about the ex parte decree regarding specific performance, they made enquiries and found out that the Plaintiff in O.S.No. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:48:47 am ) A.S.Nos.555 of 2022, 445 & 446 of 2023 19 of 2015 had obtained ex parte decree in O.S.No.34 of 2009 before the learned Sub Judge, Panruti. Therefore, the Plaintiffs in O.S.No. 20 of 2010 were forced to file the suit seeking partition against the elder son of K.M.Hanifa, the first Defendant in O.S. No.20 of 2010. Only after filing the suit, they had sought transfer of the suit in O.S. No.34 of 2009 for joint trial in O.S.No. 20 of 2010 by filing transfer application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. After setting aside the ex parte decree in O.S.No. 34 of 2009 only the suit was ordered on transfer to the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge to be tried along with O.S.No. 20 of 2010. Meanwhile, before filing the suit for partition, the Plaintiff in O.S.No. 20 of 2010 had filed O.S.No. 252 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Panruti, seeking declaration that the suit schedule mentioned property is the undivided property of Plaintiffs as well as the second Defendant in O.S.No. 252 of 2009 and seeking permanent injunction restraining the first Defendant Ramu from interfering with the peaceful possession and the enjoyment of the suit property. Since suit in O.S.No.20 of 2010 and the suit in O.S. 19 of 2015 (O.S.No.34 of 2009) were tried together, the suit in O.S.No.252 of 2009 was not taken up along with this suit. From the evidence, in the joint trial in O.S. No. 19 of 2015 and O.S.No.20 of 2010, it is found that the Plaintiff Ramu in O.S.No. 19 of 2015 was a tenant under the Plaintiffs and prior to them under K.M.Hanifa and he had entered into agreement of sale in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:48:47 am ) A.S.Nos.555 of 2022, 445 & 446 of 2023 the year 1997 immediately after the death of K.M.Hanifa for sale of the property. That shows that he was not fair. He had obtained sale agreement with only one of parties and not from all the legal heirs. A Civil Court grants relief under the Specific Relief Act only to those who approach the Court with clean hands. Here, he had played fraud on the other legal heirs of K.M.Hanifa by putting them in the dark.
49. The rulings relied by the learned Counsel for the Respondents in
(i) 2015 3 CTC 229 [Pemmada Prabhakar and others vs. Youngmen's Vysya Association and others]; (ii) 2021 (1) MWN (Civil) 316 (SC) [Venigalla Koteswaramma vs. Malampati Suryamba and others] and (iii) 2018 (5) LW https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:48:47 am ) A.S.Nos.555 of 2022, 445 & 446 of 2023 363 [Ameer Minhaj vs. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and others] are found applicable to the facts of this case in the circumstances as discussed above. The claim of the Appellant regarding execution of the sale deed for 63 cents, the share of Nazeer Ahamed alone and to grant the relief of specific performance as per Ex.A-1 also is rejected. In the light of the arguments and rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 6 (Plaintiffs in O.S.No.20 of 2010), the legal heirs of K.M.Hanifa by the principle that the right of a co-owner, the Plaintiffs in O.S.No.20 of 2010, right of pre-emption to purchase the property, the share of Nazeer Ahamed, instead of creating encumbrance in favour of third parties, who are strangers to the family in enjoying the property. The ruling relied on by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 6 reported in 2018-5-L.W. 363 [Ameer Minhaj vs. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and others] that an unregistered document cannot be pressed into service seeking relief of specific performance of contract as per Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act which came to force from 24th September 2001. Also the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents in 2021 (1) MWN (Civil) 316 (SC) [Venigalla Koteswaramma vs. Malampati Suryamba and others] is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the Appellant herein Ramu who is a Plaintiff in O.S. No.19 of 2015 and Defendant-2 in O.S.No.20 of 2010 is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. The Appeal against the final decree also is to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:48:47 am ) A.S.Nos.555 of 2022, 445 & 446 of 2023 dismissed in the light of the fact that the Plaintiff Ramu had approached the Court with unclean hands since the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore had granted alternate relief of refund of the advance amount paid by the Plaintiff Ramu in O.S.No.19 of 2015 to the sole Defendant Nazeer Ahamed. Also the Respondents in all the these Appeals in A.S.No.555 of 2022, 445 and 446 of 2023 had filed memo agreeing to refund of the amount. In the light of the above, all the three Appeals are to be dismissed confirming the judgment of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, granting the alternate relief of refund of advance amount paid by the Ramu the Plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 2015.