T M KUPPUSAMY Vs. KANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal was not admitted and only notice was ordered by this Court. After service, it was posted today for admission.

(2.) THE first defendant, who lost the case before the courts below is the appellant in this second appeal. THE Plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed O.S. No. 776 of 1994 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode for specific performance, which was decreed. Appeal in A.S. No. 106 of 1997 filed by the appellant herein before the District Court, Erode, was also dismissed, hence, the present second appeal.

(3.) CONSIDERING the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Exs. A1 and A2 and the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 and after comparing the signatures of the first defendant found in Exs. A1 and A2 with Exs. A4, A5, B1 and B2, the trial court found that the signatures of the first defendant found in Ex.A1 tally with Exs. B1 and B2 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved their case. On perusal of Ex. B1, sale agreement dated 11.03.1994 and B2, sale deed dated 08.08.1994 in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants, the trial court found that they were created by the defendants to forestall the claim of the plaintiffs. It is further pointed out by the trial court that the sale consideration agreed between the parties under Ex.A1 was Rs.3 lakhs, whereas, under Ex.B2, sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second and third defendants, the sale consideration is only Rs.81,000/- hence, Ex.B2, sale deed is nothing but a sham and nominal.