M. AMEERJAN Vs. H. M. IABAL AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2002 passed in A.S.No.157 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2000 passed in O.S.No.578 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

(2.) Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the respondent and accordingly the respondent being called and remaining absent, set exparte.

(3.) Considering the pleas and the materials placed on record as well as the submissions putforth by the appellants' counsel, it is found that the suit has been laid by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction based on the agreement of sale dated 13.01.1994 marked as Ex.A8. According to the plaintiff, Aliya Begum entered into a sale agreement marked as Ex.A8 and she received a sum of Rs.80,000/- as advance and put the plaintiff in the possession of the property agreed to be sold. The abovesaid agreement had been seriously disputed by the defendant and as rightly concluded by the Courts below, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to establish that Ex.A8 sale agreement is a true and valid one. As concluded by the Courts below, no material worth acceptance has been placed by the plaintiff to evidence that Ex.A8 sale agreement is an authenticated one. In addition, the plaintiff has also not established that Aliya Begum had the entitlement to covey 1/3 share, when it is noted that Aliya Begum is entitled to only 1/12 share of the suit property amounting to an extent of 228 sq.ft alone.