SAJI DANIEL Vs. SANTHOSHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 and the assignee of the first defendant in a suit for injunction are the appellants in this second appeal.

(2.) The second defendant is the brother of the father of the first defendant. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, as he was in debts, he borrowed money from defendants 1 and 2 and Exts.B1 and B2 documents have been executed in respect of the suit property styling it as sale deeds towards security for the loans availed by him from defendants 1 and 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that though Exts.B1 and B2 documents have been executed by him in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property, in view of the arrangements entered into between him and defendants 1 and 2, he continued to be in possession of the property. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants are attempting to trespass into the suit property and hence the suit seeking a decree of prohibitory injunction retraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit contending that Exts.B1 and B2 are genuine sale deeds by which the plaintiff has transferred all his rights, title and interests in the suit properties to them and the plaintiff has no subsisting interest in the suit property.