KUMAR Vs. DHANAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants.

(2.) THE respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.323 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.9.2004 and the suit was decreed and the appeal filed by the appellants in A.S.No.73 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi was also dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the Second Appeal is filed by the appellants.

(3.) THE 2nd defendant filed the statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant contended that the agreement of sale in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff alleged to have been executed by the 1st appellant was not true and no such agreement was executed by the 1st appellant and no amount of advance was received and the agreement dated 14.9.2004 was a forged document. The 2nd defendant came to know about the agreement in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff only after the receipt of notice from the respondent/ plaintiff and he suspected that due to some dispute between him and the 1st defendant with regard to the price, the 1st appellant colluded with the plaintiff and made an arrangement to send the notice. He also stated that on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 25.2.2005 he purchased the suit property on 15.4.2005 under the registered sale deed and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was anti dated to defeat the rights of the 2nd defendant.