P SAMPOORNAM Vs. L T SOMASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2 to 6 in O.S.No.672 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiffs thereon are the respondents herein.

(2.) THE parties in this second appeal, for the sake of convenience, are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the trial Court.

(3.) THE first defendant filed a written statement, which has been adopted by defendants 2 to 5 and the averments made thereon in brief are as follows: - It is true that the written agreement had been entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants, but it was not intended to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It was only a money transaction and there was no intention to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs. Since the defendants approached the plaintiffs for a loan, as suggested by the plaintiffs, the agreement of sale was executed by the defendants only as a security. THE property would be five times more than the agreed price and moreover for the balance of Rs.10,000/-, there is no necessity to give six months time. THE suit property is not an agricultural property and it is situated adjacent to Sivagiri Bus Stand. After getting the registered agreement, from the defendants the plaintiffs obtained signatures on the back side of the third page of the agreement wherein nothing was written. THE suit property has always been in the possession of the defendants and it was not leased out to anybody at any point of time. THE endorsement made on the back of the third page of the agreement is a fabricated one. Since there was no tenant in possession of the suit property, the claim of vacating them and executing a registered sale deed within three months from vacating the alleged tenant does not arise in any manner. THE suit is barred by limitation. THEre is no cause of action for the suit. Thus, the defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit.