K.CHANDRAPAUL Vs. C.SIVASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate court in A.S.No.109 of 1999 dated 26.06.2000 in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court made in O.S.No.544 of 1996 dated 13.01.1999 in dismissing the suit for the main relief and decreeing the alternative relief of refund of Rs.3,000/- with at 6% per annum without costs.

(2.) THE appellant was the 2nd defendant and the respondents 1 and 2 were the plaintiffs, the respondents 3 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant.

(3.) THE objections of the 1st defendant as stated in the written statement would be as follows:- The averments contained in the plaint is not correct. It is false to say that this defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs on 13.04.1988 to sell the suit properties to them. It is false to say that he received Rs.3000/- as advance and possession was handed over t the plaintiffs. The agreement is a forged document. This defendant borrowed a loan of Rs.3000/- from the plaintiffs, at that time they obtained the signatures of this defendant in blank stamp papers. So, this defendant suspects it appears to have been created. This defendant entered into an agreement with one Thangaraj on 05.10.1981 and received a sum of Rs.2000/- from him and handed over possession of the property. The said Thangaraj assigned his right in favour of the 2nd defendant on 30.12.1986 after receiving a sum of Rs.3000/-and also handed over the possession of the suit properties to the 2nd defendant. Since the 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, this defendant entered into an agreement with the 2nd defendant on 13.04.1988 to sell the property and on 17.06.1988 he executed a sale deed. Therefore, it is valid and binding upon the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser. Since the plaintiffs issued false notice, it was not replied. The plaintiffs are not entitled to refund of the advance amount paid. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.