POOJARI HULUGAPPA Vs. N. VANAJA @ SARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in R.A. No. 91/2009, on the file of Fast Track Court -Ill at Hospet, dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants and confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2008 in O.S. No. 128/2006, by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hospet.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

(3.) ON receipt of suit summons and notices, defendants appeared through their counsel and defendant No. 2 filed written statement which was adopted by defendant Nos. 1 and 3. The defendants resisted the suit by stating that the allegations made in the plaint were false, while admitting the relationship between the defendants. They have stated that the suit land was the joint family property, but denied that the agreement of sale was executed by the defendants by receiving earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. They stated that on the advice of the elders, they did not reply to the lawyer's notice issued on behalf of the plaintiff that the agreement to sell was only a nominal one. The defendants had availed loan for providing medical treatment to one Prabhu who had suffered stroke. Plaintiffs husband had agreed to lend money on the strength of the document which was a security for the said loan. Ultimately, they agreed to execute the agreement in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6,72,750/ - as such the nominal consideration has been mentioned in the agreement of sale. The said agreement was only by way of security to the loan transaction, but the defendants never agreed to sell the property. Therefore, they state that the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.