The 4th defendant also published a paper publication in “Malai Malar” of 11.11.1981, in which it informed the public of the deed of sale in favour of the defendant 3 & 5. The applicant is a very close friend of the family of defendants 1 and 2 and all of them have consulted and drawn up the contract of sale of 16.7.1980 to cause prejudice to defendants 3 to 5. Defendants 3 and 5 are buyers in value and are therefore entitled to protection and are not aware of the contract of sale of 16.7.1980. (a) The deceased S. N. Ponnuswamy Nadar concluded on 16.7.1980 with Kuppathal and Nanjammal, defendants 1 and 2, a contract of sale for the purchase of the land, and in this appeal the defendants were challenged until 8. The counter-performance of the sale was agreed with paragraph 1.19.500 / – and it was agreed that the sale would be concluded within 4 months from the date of the agreement. The second case, which is part of the first case, was transferred to the first applicant, S.N. Ponnuswamy Nadar, in the partial performance of the contract on 7.11.1980. On the day of the agreement, an advance of Rs.5,000/- was paid. The first applicant was willing and willing to acquire ownership of the remedy, but defendants 1 to 5 were not willing and, consequently, the first applicant issued a communication of 16.11.1980 to defendants 1 to 7 requesting the execution of the deed of purchase. Subsequently, defendants 1 to 5 sold the property to defendants 6 and 7 and defendants 1 to 5 are not entitled to assign the property on 16.7.1980, and the deed of sale in favour of defendants 6 and 7 is also not binding on the first party following the conclusion of a contract of sale with the applicant at first instance on 16.7.1980. Defendants 6 and 7 prepared a sales document in their favour, in agreement with defendants 1 to 5.
The first applicant was also prepared to file a counter-performance of the sale if the court had ordered it. Defendants 1 to 5 are closely related to defendants 6 and 7 and, in order to deceive the first plaintiff and thwart the legitimate right of the applicant, the deeds of sale were executed in favour of defendants 6 and 7. The Chamber referred to judgments of the Apex Court on the question of the application of the maxims ex turpi causa non oritur actio et ex dolo malo non oritur action. On the basis of the above-mentioned fundamental legal principle regarding the granting of exemption from the specific performance of a contract, the Supreme Court of India recently annulled, in a judgment of Jayakantham and others against Abaykumar, the Decree on the Specific Execution of an Agreement for the Sale of Real Estate and, instead of the exemption of a particular performance, annulled a financial settlement for the buyer (respondent) The State Aid Commission was granted. On 7.11.1980, Parties 1 and 2 requested: Kuppathal and Nanjammal, the first applicant, to extend the time limit for closing the sale on the ground that there are crops in the fields and that this was agreed on the condition that part of the land of appeal be delivered and that, consequently, the second object of the land was handed over to the first applicant on 7.11.1980 and that the time limit was extended by ten months; And this was confirmed in the purchase agreement attested by witnesses. Also on 27.8.1981, a further extension of the period of 3 months was granted, which was also confirmed in the sales contract. vi) The agreement ex. A.39, equivalent to ex. B.19, was it a real document, as the applicants claim? 4. As regards the respective assertions of the parties in the application and the written declaration set out in paragraph 707 of the O.
S.707 of 1981, the relevant paragraphs of the High Court judgment were as follows: – 3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement stating that Ponnuswamy Nadar was a real estate agent and speculator and that he was a neighbor of the defendant, and that he was also aware of the contract of sale concluded by defendants 1 and 2 with the 4th defendant on 27.3.1979. . .