P ARUMUGHAM Vs. MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit property in both the appeals is one and the same and it is a vacant site of 28-1/2 ft. east - west and 40-1/2 ft. north-south. THE said property was purchased by one Rathnammal under Ex.B11, dated 20.8.1956. THE said Rathnammal sold the property to the 1st defendant in O.S.No.42 of 1988, who is none other than her daughter-in-law, under Ex.Bl dated 14.11.68. THEreafter the said Maragatham (1st defendant in O.S.No.42 of 1988) agreed to sell the property to the plaintiffs in the said suit, the respondents 1 and 2 herein under the agreement dated 22.11.74 marked as Ex.A3.

(2.) TREATING the sale deed Ex.Bl dated 14.11.68 as a mortgage by conditional sale, the appellants who are the sons of the said Rathnammal and brothers of 1st defendant, filed the suit in O.S.No.225 of 1988 for redemption of mortgage created under Ex.Bl. To enforce Ex.A3 agreement, respondents 1 and 2 filed the another suit in O.S.No.42 of 1988. They have been impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.225 of 1988.

(3.) THE relationship of the parties are not in dispute. As mentioned already, the mother of the appellants, Rathnammal was the owner of the suit property by purchase under Ex.B11 dated 20.8.56. THE execution of the sale deed under Ex.B1 dated 14.11.68 in favour of the 4th respondent is not in dispute. THE agreement executed by 4th respondent in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 under Ex. A3 dated 22.11.74 is also not in dispute.