SANDRAYAN Vs. S S MARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is focussed by the defendants 1 to 5, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 11.4.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Bhavani, in A.S. No. 15 of 2002, confirming the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2001 passed by the Second Additional District Munsif, Bhavani in O.S. No. 85 of 1998, which was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

(2.) DESPITE notice having been served on the respondents and their names also printed in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.

(3.) CHALLENGING and impugning the judgement and decree of the appellate Court, defendants 1 to 5 have filed this second appeal on the following grounds, inter alia thus: (i) The Courts below failed to apply the principle of 'burden of proof correctly in the facts and circumstances of this case. Assuming wrongly that the burden of proof was on the defendants, the lis was decided by the Courts below. (ii) Exhibit A-1-the alleged agreement to sell was disputed by defendants 1 to 5. Whereupon the plaintiff ought to have taken steps to prove it in the way known to law. But the plaintiff failed to do so. Even then, the Courts below held as though the defendants 1 to 5 should have proved that Exhibit A-1 was a false document. (iii) Over and above that, by way of adding fuel to the fire, the Courts below commented upon the non-examination of D6/R2 herein and drew virtually adverse inference as against the defendants 1 to 5/the appellants herein. D6 is none but the mother of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendants 1 to 5 pray for setting aside the judgments of both the Courts below and for dismissal of the suit.