ANTONEY Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was for recovery of possession on the strength of their title. Item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property belonged to the 1st plaintiff and item No. 2 belonged to the 2nd plaintiff. It was contended that the defendant trespassed into the plaint schedule property on 20.11.1986 and hence the suit. The defendant denied the trespass alleged and contended that an agreement was entered into between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant as per which the 1st plaintiff agreed to assign 6.50 acres, being the northern portion of the plaint schedule property. On 24.12.1984 as per an oral agreement, a sum of Rs. 35,900/- was paid by the defendant to the 1st plaintiff as advance consideration. The balance consideration payable was Rs. 1,150/-. It was agreed that on payment of the aforesaid balance consideration, the plaintiffs will execute the sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of the defendant. Pursuant to the said agreement the defendant was put in possession of the said property and he is residing in the house situated in the said property. On 22.8.1986 the 1st plaintiff agreed to execute the document and thus an agreement was prepared. That original agreement dated 22.8.1986 was lost from K.J. Philip, who was one of the Mediators, who was in custody of that agreement. Draft agreement was given possession to the defendant. Again another mediation took place. Pursuant thereto an agreement was reduced in writing. The defendant contended that since possession was handed over pursuant to the agreement for sale, he is entitled to get protection under S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("T.P. Act" for short).

(2.) The 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked. DWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the defendant and Exhibits B1 to B7 were marked. The Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Exhibits C1 and C2.

(3.) With regard to item No. 2, which belonged to the 2nd plaintiff, the defendant had no case that any agreement was executed by the 2nd plaintiff and as such the defendant is not entitled to get any relief in respect of plaint item No. 2 measuring 3.82 acres in Re-Survey No. 105. That is not in dispute now. But in respect of item No. 1, claim made by the defendant was accepted by the courts below.