NANU Vs. KARTHIYANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are defendants I and 2 in OS 378 of 1978 of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. They challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit property with mesne profits-

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that she had agreed to sell the property to defendants as per Ext.B1 agreement, on receipt of Rs. 4,800/- from them, that possession was given to them, that there were certain technical difficulties in executing the registered sale deed, and that 30th August 1972 was fixed as the outer limit for the execution of the sale deed. Plaintiff undertook to indemnify the defendants if the sale deed could not be executed due to any default on her side. Defendants admitted Ext.B1 agreement and possession pursuant to it, They contended that they have improved the property and constructed a building in it and the plaintiff was dodging the execution of the sale deed with ulterior motives.

(3.) Whether the defendants can invoke S.53A of the Transfer of Property Act by way of defence in the suit for eviction filed against them if the question to be considered in the appeal. Under the agreement Ext.B1 the entire consideration was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff and possession of the property was given to them. Plaintiff examined as Pw. 1 admitted categorically that all the recitals in Ext.B1 are true and that she received Rs. 4, 800/- as full consideration. She deposed that possession of the property was handed over to the defendants on that date. Dw. 1 stated that the entire amount under Ext.B1 was paid to the plaintiff, that he and the second defendant got possession of the property and that they have made valuable improvements including construction of a house. Exts. B-5 and B-6 evidence payment of tax. Ext.B7 is the land cess receipt issued from the Village Office to the first defendant.