S.Ramakrishnan v. R.M.Subbiah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18-8-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAHOSA Nos.339 and 340 of 2003, 207 and 325 of 2008and 14 and 15 of 2009andMP Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 in OSA 207 of 2008andMP No.1 of 2008 in OSA 325 of 2008S.Ramakrishnan.. Appellant in all appealsvsR.M.Subbiah.. Respondent in all appealsOSA Nos.339 and 340 of 2003 preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 11of O.S. Rules and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the fairand decretal order made by this Court in Application Nos.3023 and3025 of 1999 in C.S.No.1586 of 1988 dated 2.12.2002.OSA Nos.207 of 2008 and 14 and 15 of 2009 preferred underClause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 11 ofO.S. Rules against the order of this Court made in ReviewApplication Nos.2251 2253 and 2252 of 2003 in Application Nos.1873,2481 and 1874 of 2002 in E.P.No.19 of 2000 dated 18.12.2007.OSA No.325 of 2008 preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S.Rules and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the fair anddecreetal order of this Court in Application No.3024 of 1999 inC.S.No.1586 of 1988 dated 20.11.2007.For Appellant: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi for appellant in OSA 339 & 340/2003 &325/2008 Mr.G.Jeremiah for appellant in OSA 207/2008 & 14 & 15/2009For Respondent: Mr.A.P.S.Kasthurirangan for M/s.SampathkumarAssociates for respondent in OSA 339 & 340/2003 &325/2008 & 14 & 15/2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram Senior Counsel for M/s.Uma for respondent in OSA 207/2008COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)This judgment shall govern these six appeals in OSA Nos.339 and340 of 2003, 207 and 325 of 2008 and 14 and 15 of 2009.2.OSA Nos.339 and 340 of 2003 challenge a common order ofdismissal made by the learned Single Judge of this Court inApplication Nos.3023 and 3025 of 1999 whereby the appellant hereinwho was the defendant in C.S.No.1586 of 1988 sought for a directionto the respondent/plaintiff to hand over title deeds in respect ofthe suit property within the stipulated time and also to direct theplaintiff to receive a sum of Rs.3,87,500/- from the defendantsubject to such adjustment that may be permissible in law havingregard to the occupation of the ground floor of the property by theplaintiff, while the appellant/defendant aggrieved over the order ofthe learned Single Judge made in Review Application Nos.2251 to 2253of 2003, has brought forth OSA Nos.207 of 2008 and 14 and 15 of2009. The appellant has also brought forth OSA No.325 of 2008challenging an order of the learned Single Judge in ApplicationNo.3024 of 1999 seeking to rescind the contract dated 2.11.1986.3.The above applications came to be filed under the followingcircumstances:(a) The respondent/plaintiff filed C.S.No.1586 of 1988 forspecific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2.11.1986 enteredinto between the parties in respect of the undivided half share ofthe suit property situated at No.31, Jambulinga Naicken Street,Nungambakkam, Madras 34. Equally, the appellant/defendant filed asuit in C.S.No.130 of 1990 for a perpetual injunction restrainingthe defendant therein from interfering with the peaceful possessionand enjoyment of the property till the partition was effected bymetes and bounds between the coparceners in respect of the suitproperty. A common judgment was rendered by the trial Court on7.12.1995, decreeing the suit for specific performance and damagesin CS 1586 of 1988 and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant inCS 130/90. Aggrieved appellant has preferred two appeals therefromin OSA Nos.250 and 251/1996 before the Division Bench of this Court.On appeals, the decree for specific performance was confirmed whilethe relief of injunction was negatived. The appellant/defendantfiled SLP Nos.5703 and 5704 of 1999 before the Apex Court andwithdrew the same. (b) While the matter stood thus, the appellant/defendant filedApplication Nos.3023 to 3025 of 1999 for delivery of key of theground floor of the suit property, handing over the title deedsrelating to the suit property, rescinding the contract and directingthe plaintiff to receive a sum of Rs.3,87,500/- from the appellantsubject to such adjustment that may be permissible in law with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ regard to the occupation of the ground floor of the suit property bythe respondent. All the three applications were dismissed. TheDivision Bench directed all these three applications to be re-heardby the trial Court. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed E.P.No.19of 2000. The appellant filed Application No.4571 of 2000 inC.S.No.1586 of 1988 for stay of E.P., and pursuant to the directionsof the Court, the respondent has deposited a sum of Rs.74,499/-which is in Court deposit. The appellant filed ApplicationNo.1837/2001 to reject the E.P. Aggrieved over the dismissal ofthe said application by the learned Master, the appellant filedApplication No.1873 of 2002. The learned Single Judge held that therespondent was not entitled to the relief of delivery of possession.Application Nos.3023 to 3025 of 1999 were heard. The order waspassed only in A.Nos.3023 and 3025 of 1999 against which theappellant has preferred OSA Nos.339 and 340 of 2003. (c) The suit in C.S.No.408 of 2002 filed by the appellant fordeclaration of title to the property was withdrawn with liberty. Acontempt petition was filed by the appellant in C.P.No.995 of 2007for disobeying the decree in OSA No.251/1996 dated 28.6.1999. TheDivision Bench ordered to hand over the key of the ground floor ofthe property by 16.11.2007. The same was complied with by therespondent. A memo was also filed on 20.11.2007, that the key ofthe ground floor of the suit property was handed over on the ordersmade in the above contempt petition, and the memo was also recorded.A.No.3022/1999 was disposed of. (d) The appellant filed a suit in C.S.No.1129 of 2007 fordeclaration of title and injunction based on the release deedexecuted by his brother and by virtue of order made in WP No.6114 of1989, and the said suit is also pending. The respondent filedReview Application Nos.2251 to 2253 of 2003 to review the ordermade in A.Nos.1873, 1874 and 2481 of 2002 dated 9.8.2002, and thesame were allowed. Aggrieved over the orders of the learned SingleJudge in all the above applications, the present appeals have beenbrought forth by the defendant.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant in OSA 339 and340/2003 and 325/2008, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.AR.L.Sundaresanwould submit that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit forspecific performance of the agreement of sale; that though he hadexpressed in the plaint his readiness and willingness to perform hispart of the contract arising out of the sale agreement dated2.11.1986, he has not paid the balance of sale consideration ofRs.74,499/-; that a judgment was made in favour of theplaintiff/respondent on 7.12.1995, granting a decree for specificperformance, and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench ofthis Court in OSA No.250 of 1996 on 28.6.1999; that till this timethe respondent has not paid the balance purchase money payable byhim in spite of the fact that the parties to the proceedings wereconscious about the applications arising out of the decree passed bythe trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court; that there wasdeliberate and willful evasion on the part of the respondent toperform his part of the contract, and hence the respondent could notretain the privilege of a decree and enforce the same against thevaluable property; that by reason of failure to deposit or pay thebalance of sale consideration, the respondent/plaintiff forfeitedhis right under the decree; that the defendant was willing to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deposit the moneys which were paid by the plaintiff subject to theadjustment under Clause 8 of the agreement and which were to bepermissible in law having regard to the occupation of the groundfloor of the property of the plaintiff pursuant to the orders passedby the Court; that the decree holder has totally failed to performhis part of the obligation arising out of the decree, and hence itis liable to be rescinded and the benefit which was conferred on himwas liable to be recalled; that the appellant was always ready andwilling to pay such an amount that may be determined by the Courtwhile rescinding the contract in his favour; that clause 8 of theagreement dated 2.11.1986 provides for a recourse; that havingregard to the default committed by the decree holder and his failureto comply with the spirit of the decree, the application forrescission of the contract is made by the appellant; that certaindocuments were handed over to the plaintiff at the time of enteringinto the contract; that since the contract was sought to berescinded and on rescission of the contract, the custody of thosedocuments in the hands of the respondent/plaintiff was neither legalnor valid; that the respondent/plaintiff cannot retain thosedocuments nor dealt with the property in view of the rescission ofthe contract, Clauses in the contract and also Section 20 of theSpecific Relief Act; and that under the circumstances the appellanthas sought for a suitable direction to the respondent/plaintiff todeliver the documents, but the learned Single Judge has notconsidered any one of these factual or legal positions and hasdismissed the application for rescinding the contract. 5.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that the learnedSingle Judge has not taken into consideration the conduct of therespondent in the payment of balance of sale consideration; that therespondent had not taken any steps for the payment of balance ofsale consideration ever since from the date of the decree of thetrial Court namely 7.12.1995; that the respondent has also not caredto make any attempt to pay the balance of sale consideration; thatthough the appellant has specifically raised a ground in OSA 250/96,even after the disposal of OSA Nos.250 and 251/96, the respondenthas not taken care to deposit the amount; that the appellant hasalready raised a plea of rescinding the contract in the trial Courtitself; that the Court has clearly observed that the appellant hadfiled the application for rescinding the contract, and the same wasnot considered by the trial Court; that the appellant had sought forstay of the execution proceedings in A.No.4571 of 2000; that therespondent was voluntarily directed by the Court to deposit thebalance of sale consideration even in the absence of any specificrequest by the respondent in that regard; that the learned SingleJudge was in error in holding that 90% of the amount was paid by therespondent; that the same was untenable in view of clause 8 of theagreement; that the respondent had not even made a single attemptfor the past four years to make the payment of the balance of saleconsideration; that it was not correct to state that in pursuance ofthe order of the Court, the respondent has deposited the balance ofsale consideration; that the very same applications in A.Nos.3023and 3025 of 1999 along with an application No.3024 of 1999 weretaken up after the Division Bench order dated 20.10.2000; that itwould be quite clear that the Court was prejudiced by its earlierorder; that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the applications https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ again without appreciation of the averments and contentions properlyand even after the matter was remitted back to be reheard; that theCourt was in error in directing the respondent herein for payment ofthe balance of sale consideration when the application forrescinding the contract was pending; and that it is not correct tostate that the respondent had immediately deposited the balance ofsale consideration after the order in A.No.4571/2000 dated29.11.2000, which is untenable. 6.It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel thatthe learned Single Judge has not appreciated the claim of theappellant for rescinding the contract under the provisions of Sec.27of the Specific Relief Act since it was neither decided by the trialCourt nor by the appellate Court; that it is true that at the timeof granting a decree for specific performance, the Court has notfixed the time for payment of the balance of sale consideration, butit has issued a direction to the appellant/defendant to execute thesale deed within a period of three months which was an indication tothe plaintiff that within the said time, he should pay or depositthe balance of sale consideration of Rs.74,499/-; that since he hasnot done so, he cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the decree;that it was a fit case where the appellant's application forrescinding the contract should have been allowed, and hence theorder of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside.7.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant in OSA Nos.207of 2008 and 14 and 15 of 2009, the learned Counsel would submit thatthe order passed by the learned Single Judge in the reviewapplication Nos.2251 to 2253/2003 in A.Nos.1873, 1874 and 2481/2002was erroneous; that an order was passed on 9.8.2002, whereby thelearned Single Judge has elaborately discussed the issue and heldthat once the relief of recovery of possession has been disallowedby the Division Bench, it cannot be achieved by including such arelief in the execution petition so as to circumvent the decreepassed by the Division Bench; that the learned Single Judge whoseorder is sought to be reviewed has specifically held that theplaintiff had also not approached the Division Bench seeking areview or a clarification of the order, and hence the learned Singlejudge should not have reviewed the earlier order whereby the claimof the respondent was rejected stating that the contentions of therespondent/plaintiff were already negatived by the Division Bench;that the order under challenge in effect would amount to thereversal of the finding of the Division Bench and thus the learnedSingle Judge was in error in interpreting; that it is pertinent tonote that the Division Bench has granted a decree for injunction inrespect of the entire property in question as against the respondentin OSA No.251/96; that it is not correct to state that the DivisionBench has dealt with the issue of possession only with regard to theground floor of the property; that the decree for injunction grantedby the Division Bench related to the entire property; that under thecircumstances the learned Single Judge should have asked the partiesto seek for clarification from the Division Bench instead ofincorrectly interpreting the said judgment against the spirit andtenor of the judgment of the Division Bench; that the appellant hasalready preferred OSA No.207 of 2008 against the very same commonorder dated 18.12.2007 against the review application No.2251/2003, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and hence the order has got to be set aside.8.The learned Counsel for the respondent in OSA Nos.339 and 340of 2003 and 325 of 2008 and 14 and 15 of 2009 and the learned SeniorCounsel for the respondent in OSA 207 of 2008 in their sincereattempt of sustaining the order put forth the very same contentionsthat were raised before the learned Single Judge.9.As could be seen above, the appellant sought the rescissionof the agreement for sale entered into on 2.11.1986, on the groundthat the respondent has deliberately and willfully evaded theperformance of his part of the contract by reason of failure todeposit or pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.74,499/-, andthus he has forfeited his rights under the decree for specificperformance. The same ground is equally urged before this Court. Itwould be more appropriate to state the circumstances attendantwhich, in the considered opinion of this Court, are necessary todecide these appeals. 10.The appellant and his brother Rathnam jointly owned animmovable property namely the house property. They entered into twosale agreements on 2.11.1986 with the respondent in respect of theundivided half share in the property, and the entire saleconsideration was mentioned as Rs.5,12,500/- each. The brother ofthe appellant on receipt of the entire consideration as stipulatedin the agreement has executed a registered sale deed in favour ofthe respondent in respect of the undivided half share, while theappellant did not in respect of the other. When the saleconsideration was shown as Rs.5,12,500/-, the plaintiff has paidRs.50,501/- on 2.11.1986, as advance on the date of agreement,Rs.2.50 lakhs on 20.8.1987, Rs.75,000/- on 27.12.1987, Rs.50,000/-on 10.1.1988 and Rs.12,500/- on 14.1.1989, and thus admittedly a sumof rs.4,38,001/- was paid even before the filing of the suit forspecific performance in C.S.No.1586/1988. The appellant has notonly contested the suit, but also filed another suit in C.S.No.130of 1990 for permanent injunction. The trial Court heard both thesuits, decreed the suit filed by the respondent and dismissed thesuit by the appellant. Aggrieved over the same, the appellantpreferred OSA Nos.250 and 251 of 1996 respectively. The DivisionBench of this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court inrespect of the decree for specific performance though negatived therelief of damages and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant inOSA No.251/1996 setting aside the judgment of the trial Court andgranting an injunction in favour of the appellant. The appellanthas also preferred SLP Nos.5703 and 5704 of 1999 before the ApexCourt but withdrew the same. While the matter stood thus, therespondent filed E.P.No.19 of 2000 seeking execution of the decreefor specific performance wherein stay was asked for by theappellant. Pursuant to the directions of the Court on 29.11.2000,the respondent/plaintiff has deposited the balance of saleconsideration on 1.12.2000. Under the above stated circumstances,an application was filed for rescission of the contract on theground of non-performance of the agreement by reason of failure todeposit or pay balance of consideration namely Rs.74,499/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.Pointing to the decree originally made in C.S.No.1586/1988,it was contended by the appellant's side that the defendant shouldexecute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff inrespect of the undivided half share of 'A' schedule property anddeliver vacant possession of the first floor of the said propertyoccupied by the defendant on or before 7.3.1996; that at that time,the balance of consideration of Rs.74,499/- was payable; thatthereafter the decree for specific performance was affirmed by theDivision Bench of this Court by a common judgment in OSA Nos.250 and251 of 1996 on 28.6.1999; that even after the disposal of theappeals, the balance was not paid; but on the contrary, therespondent filed EP, and in an application for stay even withoutasking by the respondent, there was a direction to deposit thebalance of consideration; that he has also deposited so on1.12.2000, and this would not in any way cure the situation; that itwas a clear case of deliberate and willful evasion and non-performance of his obligation which would call for a rescission ofthe agreement, and hence rescission was to be ordered. In a suitfor specific performance of an immovable property on the strength ofan agreement for sale, while decreeing the suit, the Court has tostipulate the reasonable time within which the parties were toperform their obligations. If the time is not stipulated, it shouldbe within reasonable time. What is reasonable time depends upon thefacts and circumstances of each case. Normally when there was adirection to the defendant, the owner of the property, to executeand register a sale deed within the stipulated time, it is anindication to the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract bymaking payment of the balance of sale consideration. But, at thesame time, in a given case, the Court should not be so rigid ingiving strict application by avoiding cognizance of the special orpeculiar circumstances. No doubt, law is supreme. But the law hasto bend before justice. The endeavor of the Courts of law is to dojustice. The application of any law is to achieve the goal ofrendering justice. This Court is of the considered opinion that inthe instant case, the circumstances noticed would indicate thatthere was neither deliberate nor willful evasion on the part of therespondent in depositing or paying the balance of sale considerationwhich would warrant for a rescission of the agreement. 12.The agreement was entered into in the year 1986, and out ofthe sale consideration of Rs.5,12,500/-, admittedly, the appellanthas received Rs.4,38,001/- as stated supra even before the filing ofthe suit. Even the agreement would stipulate that the balance ofconsideration should be paid at the time of the registration of thedocument. The trial Court has not stipulated any time for payment.Ordinarily it is not necessary as stated above. Even during thesaid period, the appellant was called upon to execute the document,but there was no reply forthcoming; on the contrary, the appellanthas preferred appeals in OSA Nos.250 and 251 of 1996, and they weredisposed of in June 1999. It was the respondent who filed E.P.,where the appellant has sought for a stay. Pursuant to the ordersof the Court on 29.11.2000, the respondent has made the deposit ofRs.74,499/- within a few days. It is pertinent to point out thatthis payment was made pursuant to the orders of the Court. Even incases where time is stipulated for payment of the balance of sale https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consideration, the Court can extend the time. When the Court suomotu made an order, the Court considering the circumstances hasissued a direction for making deposit of the balance ofconsideration, and as per the order, the respondent had depositedthe sum immediately within two days. Nowhere the appellant has comeforward with a case to state that the respondent has not paid thebalance of consideration due to the financial deficiency. Theappellant has categorically admitted that major part of theconsideration is received by him namely Rs.4,38,001/-, and the samewas deposited by him with the banking institution and was regularlygetting interest thereon. As pointed out above, the suit forspecific performance was filed in the year 1988. The said sum andthe proceedings have been pending for more than 20 years, and allalong these years, the appellant has been getting interestapproximately Rs.4000/- per month for nearly two decades and hasenjoyed the benefit of the same. In view of the abovecircumstances, this Court is unable to notice any deliberate orwillful evasion in the payment of the balance of sale consideration.But, on the contrary, the appellant having entered into an agreementfor sale in the year 1986 and having put forth all kinds of defencein the suit for specific performance and having lost the same beforethe trial Court and also before the appellate forum in OSA No.250 of1996 and also having preferred SLP and withdrew the same, has nowcome forward to seek for rescission in order to avoid the contract.13.It was contended by the appellant's side that even if therescission of the agreement for sale between the parties is notordered, the respondent should file a suit for recovery ofpossession since the suit filed by the appellant seeking permanentinjunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with thepossession of the appellant in the suit property though dismissed bythe trial Court in C.S.No.130/1990, was decreed by the DivisionBench in OSA No.251/96 stating that the respondent was only a co-owner who has purchased an undivided half share in the property andthus, he must go for a suit for partition; and that under thecircumstances, the respondent cannot now ask for possession, and hemust take separate proceedings in that regard. Contrary to theabove, it was urged by the respondent's side that the Division Benchin the common judgment in OSA 250 and 251/96 has clearly pointed outthat the respondent is the owner of the entire property, and hence,the above contention of the appellant's side has to be rejected. Itwould be more apt and appropriate to reproduce that part of thecommon judgment of the Division Bench in OSA Nos.250 and 251/96 asfollows:"27.The plaintiff has sought the relief of permanentinjunction restraining the defendant from interfering withthe plaintiff's possession. The defendant as plaintiff inC.S.130/90 has also sought the relief of injunction inrespect of the ground floor and the first floor of the Aschedule property. The plaintiff contends that after thesale deed Ex.A.12 was executed by the brother of thedefendant on 12.11.88, he handed over possession of theground floor to him and he is in possession and enjoymentof the suit property and the defendant is trying tointerfere with his possession and so, he is entitled toinjunction asked for. On the other hand, the defendant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contends that the property being undivided one and as itis a Hindu undivided family property, the purchaser fromthe other co-owner cannot seek the relief of injunctionand the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction asked for.Much reliance is placed upon by the defendant on the saledeed Ex.A.12 and the plaintiff contends that possession ofthe ground floor has been handed over to him.28.Of course, there is recitals in the sale deed Ex.A12executed by the other brother Rathnam that the groundfloor portion was handed over to the plaintiff. It issignificant to note that in the schedule property in thesale deed Ex.A.12, only the undivided half share is soldto the plaintiff. So no specific portion was conveyed tothe plaintiff by the other co-owner Rathnam under thatsale deed. Since the undivided half share alone was soldto the plaintiff under that sale deed, the remedy open tothe plaintiff for getting possession is only to seek therelief of partition of the properties........31.....The plaintiff has already purchased undivided halfshare of the property belonging to the other co-ownerMr.Rathnam. This suit is in respect of the remainingundivided half share and the plaintiff has been grantedrelief of specific performance of the contract and theplaintiff is entitled to the entire property...."14.From the very reading of the above as found in the judgmentof the Division Bench made earlier in OSA Nos.250 and 251/96, itwould be quite clear that the Court has observed that the respondenthas purchased only an undivided half share in the sale deed executedby the brother of the appellant, while the other undivided halfbelonged to the appellant, and thus the plaintiff cannot get aninjunction against the defendant, and the remedy open to theplaintiff for getting possession was only to seek the relief ofpartition of the properties. The Division Bench has found so sinceat the time when the appeals came up for consideration, theplaintiff/respondent became the owner of the undivided half share bypurchasing the same from Mr.Rathnam the brother of the appellant,and in respect of the other undivided half share, the respondent isonly having a decree for specific performance, but did not becomeits owner in view of the non-completion of the transaction byexecution and registration of a sale deed. It is because of whichthe Division Bench in order to avoid any confusion and also to avoidany such contention, as now made by the appellant's side, hasobserved "The plaintiff has already purchased undivided half shareof the property belonging to the other co-owner Mr.Rathnam. Thissuit is in respect of the remaining undivided half share and theplaintiff has been granted relief of specific performance of thecontract and the plaintiff is entitled to the entire property."Hence the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of theobservation found that the plaintiff was only a co-owner and inorder to get possession he must go for a separate proceedings whichcan, at no stretch of imagination, be allowed. 15.It is pertinent to point out that by purchase of anundivided half share from Mr.Rathnam, the brother of the appellant, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the plaintiff has become the co-owner of the property with theappellant with whom he has entered into an agreement for sale inrespect of the other undivided half share, and the litigations werepending that time. As on today, by virtue of the undivided sharefrom Mr.Rathnam, the brother of the appellant, and by virtue of thedecree granted by the trial Court in C.S.No.1586/88 and thereafteraffirmed by the Division Bench by a common judgment in OSA Nos.250and 251/96 which has reached finality, the respondent has become theowner of the entire property. Under the stated circumstances, ifthe contention of the appellant's side has got to be accepted, therespondent/plaintiff must be driven to initiate proceedings andlitigate for decades to get the fruit of the decree. It ispertinent to point out that the undivided half share was purchasedfrom Rathnam the brother of the appellant, in the year 1986, and inrespect of the other half C.S.No.1586/88 was filed in the year 1988,and thus the litigation between the parties is pending for more thantwo decades. This Court is of the considered opinion that in orderto avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and also avoidablelitigation, it would not be just or proper or worthwhile to drivethe respondent/plaintiff to go for further round of litigation. ThisCourt is unable to agree with the contentions put forth by theappellant's side since they do not carry any merit whatsoever, andthey are liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected. The appealin that regard has got to be dismissed.16.Equally, the requests for return of documents which werehanded over by the appellant to the respondent at the time ofentering into the agreement and for a direction to the to theplaintiff to receive the said sum have got be denied as rightly doneby the learned Single Judge. The appeals which have arisen from theorder of the learned Single Judge, have got to be dismissed.17.As regards the challenge made by the appellant against theorder of the learned Single Judge in Review Application Nos.2251 to2253 of 2003, in view of the order passed above, this Court isunable to see any merit in the contentions put forth by theappellant's side. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice ofthe Court that the E.P. is pending. There is no impediment for theE.P. being proceeded with. Hence, there is nothing to disturb thatorder of the learned Single Judge. The appeals in that regard areliable to be dismissed.18.In the result, all these original side appeals standdismissed confirming the orders of the learned Single Judge. Theparties shall bear their own costs. Consequently, connected MPs arealso dismissed.NsvSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Sub Assistant Registrar,Original Side, High Court,Madras.•1 cc to Ms. C. Uma, Advocate SR No.39338•4 ccs to Mrs. A.L. Gandhimathi, Advocate SR No.39411, 39504•3 ccs to Mr. G. Jeremiah, Advocate SR No.39102•2 ccs to M/s. Sampath Kumar Associates, Advocate SR No.39667•JRG(CO)•SR/27.8.2009OSA Nos.339, 340/2003,207 & 325/2008 and14 & 15/2009