APPU Vs. BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O. S. 269 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. The suit is filed for declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property as per the registered assignment deed dated 23.5.89 and the defendant has got only a tenancy right to reside in the house situated in the plaint schedule property and for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or doing anything detrimental to the plaintiff's right in and possession of the plaint schedule property.

(2.) According to the plaintiff / appellant, the defendant / respondent assigned the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 53,000/- in his favour as per Ext. A1 assignment deed dated 23.5.89 and executed Ext. A2 rent agreement in favour of the appellant for residence in the house situated in the plaint schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. It is also contended that since the respondent's son in law demanded for brokerage and the appellant refused to pay the same, the respondents did not give possession of the property to the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent executed Ext. B1 revocation deed of the assignment on 29.5.89. Hence the appellant sent Ext. A3 registered lawyer notice dated 7.6.1989 and instituted the above suit for necessary reliefs.

(3.) The defendant / respondent contended that there was no intention to sell the plaint schedule property to the appellant. When the respondent approached the appellant for a loan of Rs. 53,000/-, the appellant insisted execution of a registered document as security for the loan. Therefore the respondent executed Ext. A1 assignment deed, but the appellant refused to pay the consideration as promised and therefore he has executed Ext. B1 revocation deed. He has also contended that Ext. B2 rent bond is fabricated by the appellant on blank signed stamp papers obtained by him.