MAHESWARI AND ORS. Vs. M. GOPAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal heirs of the plaintiff Dhanakodi in O.S. No. 540 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Salem, are the appellants herein. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed for specific performance of Contract of Sale dated 25.02.1995. By decree and judgment dated 21.11.2006, the trial court dismissed the suit, however, the decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property was granted. Before the expiry of the appeal time for filing appeal, the sole plaintiff R.Dhanakodi died. Therefore, his legal representatives, who are the appellants herein, filed an appeal in A.S. No. 177 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. The 2nd defendant M. Venkatachalam filed a Cross Objection. Both were heard and disposed of by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, by decree and judgment dated 04.03.2008 by which the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal, but allowed the Cross -objection, thereby setting aside the decree for injunction granted by the trial court. As against the same, the appellants are before this Court with this Second Appeal.

(2.) THIS Second Appeal has come up before me today for admission. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents and I have also perused the records carefully.

(3.) IN the written statement, the defendants stated that there was no such sale agreement intentionally executed on 25.02.1995. It is true that the document bears the signature of the 1st defendant. But, there was no such understanding or agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to sell the suit property by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It was also stated that the 1st defendant never agreed to sell the property and therefore, he is not liable to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was also contended that the sale made by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is valid and thus, the 2nd defendant has become the absolute owner of the suit property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same.