RAJAGOPAL Vs. PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment, dated 27. 2. 1995 made in A. S. No. 167 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, the legal heirs of the deceased defendant have preferred this appeal.

(2.) ORIGINALLY the suit properties belonged to the defendant, the deceased Rajagopal. In respect of the 2nd item of the suit properties, the defendant executed a mortgage deed in favour of one Govindarajulu Naidu on 27. 1. 1981 as per Exhibit A2-Registered Mortgage Deed for a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -. According to the plaintiff, namely, Perumal, the said Govindarajulu Naidu assigned the mortgage deed, dated 27. 1. 1981 in favour of the plaintiff on 25. 12. 1984, after receiving a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from him. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had executed a sale agree?ment in favour of the plaintiff on 25. 12. 1984 and the sale price was fixed as Rs. 14,250/- and prior to the execution of the sale agreement, the defendant had received a sum of Rs. 2,300/- and Rs. 5,000/- as advance sale consid?eration. The defendant had also adjusted the mortgage amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards balance sale consideration. Thereafter, the defendant handed over possession of the 1st item of the suit properties to the plaintiff As per the sale agreement, the plaintiff has to pay the bal?ance amount of Rs. 3,950/- to the defendant on or before 25. 2. 1988 and after receiving the said amount, the defendant has to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the possession of Item No. 2 of the suit properties was handed over to the plaintiff. Since the de?fendant interfered with the possession of the suit properties by the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 379 of 1988 for injunction.

(3.) THE defendant denied each and every averment made in the plaint, stating that he has not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff. The alleged execution of the sale agree?ment for Rs. 14,250/- is specifically denied by him as forgery and that the defendant has not received any paise at any time. The defendant admitted that he and his son had mortgaged the suit properties to one Govindarajulu Naidu for Rs. 3,000/- and handed over the possession of the properties to the said mortgagee and he alone is in possession and enjoyment of the properties till date. He contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 379 of 1988 is an ill-advised attempt to get into the suit properties and prayed for dismissal of the same.