SUNDARAM AMMAL Vs. GOWRIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant, having aggrieved by the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court, has filed the above Second Appeals.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 61 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court , tenkasi for declaration and recovery of possession from the appellant/first defendant, on the basis that she purchased the property under Ex. A. 2 dated 14. 3. 1986 from the second defendant. THE appellant who is the first defendant in O. S. No. 61 of 1986 , contested the suit contending inter alia that she was in possession of the property as a tenant and subsequently mortgage deeds were created under exs. A. 10 and A. I 1 over the suit property in her favour and the parties agreed to adjust the interest in payment of rent. Subsequently, the second defendant agreed to sell the property to the first defendant/appellant and entered into an agreement under Ex. B. 3 dated 20. 11. 1985. According to the appellant/first defendant, the possession from 20. 11. 1985 was on the basis of the agreement and not as a tenant. On that basis, she has come forward with a plea that she is entitled to protection under Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. THE appellant also came forward with a plea that the agreement under Ex. A. I and the sale agreement under Ex. A. 2 in favour of the plaintiff were only to defraud the first defendant/appellant.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the plaintiff purchased the suit property under Ex. A. 2 dated 14. 3. 1986. It is also not in dispute that there was an agreement in favour of the appellant under Ex. B. 3 dated 20. 11. 1985. In view of the fact that both court's concurrently found that the agreement marked as Ex. B. 3 in favour of the appellant/first defendant is a valid agreement, we have to decide the case on the basis of the said finding.