S ANNAMALAI Vs. E SOUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal by the defendant the only point argued was that Ex. A.-3 sale deed is forgery. The trial Court held that it was forgery but the appellate Court dissented from that and held that it is genuine and true document. The sale deed came to be executed in the following circumstances. One Anthoni Devasagayam executed an Othi deed Ex. A-1 dated 21-6-1986 in favour of one Lakshmiammal for a sum of Rupees 3,000/- Lakshmiammal assigned the Othi to one Valliammal on 19-3-1973 and Valliammal assigned it to the defendant under Ex. A-2 on 7-4-1974.

(2.) According to the plaintiff he purchased the property for Rs. 10,000/- under Ex. A3 dated 21-12-83 from Devasagayam. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant offering to pay the Othi amount and redeem the suit property but the defendant evaded. The plaintiff filed a petition in O.P. No. 71 of 1984 under S. 83 of the Transfer of Property Act for depositing the othi amount into Court and deposited the sum of Rs. 3,000/- on 25-4-1984, but the defendant disputed the sale in favour of the plaintiff and hence the petition was dismissed. On these grounds the plaintiff has filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage and also for mesne profits from 25-4-1984.

(3.) As against these the defendant would contend that Anthoni Devasagayam as soon as he executed the mortgage deed in favour of Lakshmiammal on 21-6-1966, left for Singapore and he never returned to India and he died there itself without leaving any heir. He further contended that the alleged sale deed Ex. A3 in favour of the plaintiff is false and fabricated document and therefore the plaintiff has no right to redeem the mortgage under Ex. A3 sale deed and the suit is liable to be dismissed.