YASODAMMAL Vs. JANAKI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in the lower Court are the appellants in this appeal. The suit has been filed by them to establish their title to the suit property, house and ground No. 12, New St. , Nungambakkam, Madras, against the first defendant who claims rights over the same in pursuance of an agreement alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiffs and the first defendant to sell the suit property to the latter. The brief facts which led up to the appeal may be stated.

(2.) THE property was purchased under Ex. A-1 on 29-8-1948 by the first plaintiff from one Pachai Pillai and Purushotham for a sum of Rs. 6,500. The parties are near relatives and their relationship can be stated with reference to Kullammal to whom frequent reference will have to be made in the course of this judgment. Kullammal's daughter is the first plaintiff and her husband is the second plaintiff. Pachai Pillai and Purushotham from whom the first plaintiff purchased the suit property under Ex. A-1 are the sons of Kullammal's sister. Janaki, the first defendant, is Kullammal's sister's daughter. One Kanna Pillai to whom again reference will have to be made is the brother of the first defendant Janaki. Janaki's sister's husband is one Damodar. Kullammal being a near relative was living with the plaintiffs till about 1953-55. There is controversy between the parties as to when exactly Kullammal separated from the plaintiffs but it is unnecessary to find out when exactly Kullammal left the family of the plaintiffs. Under Ex. A-20 dated 25-4-1949, the first plaintiff purchased a house No. 3, Abbu Naicken Street, from one Gopalakrishnan for a sum of Rs. 10,000. The case of the first defendant is that at that time the plaintiffs required money for paying the price for the house in abbu Naicken Street, that in connection therewith the first plaintiff entered into an agreement sometime in April 1949 to sell the suit property to the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 6,500, that at the time of the agreement she paid a sum of Rs. 3,500 to the plaintiff and that the arrangement between the parties was that within two or three months thereafter the balance of Rs. 3,000 would be paid by the first plaintiff, and the sale transaction completed. It is the further case of the first defendant that as the first plaintiff was anxious to complete the transaction under Ex. A-20 even earlier, the first plaintiff desired the first defendant to pay the balance of Rs. 3,000 much earlier than the time stipulated under the previous agreement and that for that purpose it was agreed between the parties that the first plaintiff should be enabled to raise money, namely, Rs. 3,000 by mortgaging the suit property to the second defendant. The further case of the first defendant is that in pursuance of that arrangement the first plaintiff executed a mortgage Ex. A-2, dated 2-5-1949 in favour of the second defendant and raised the sum of Rs. 3,000 which was utilised for completing the transaction under Ex. A-20. In 1953 a house bearing door No. 42, Village Road, was purchased by Kullammal and between 1953 and 1955 open hostility and misunderstandings arose between the plaintiffs and Kullammal in respect of properties purchased by the plaintiffs in which Kullammal claimed certain rights. As a result of these misunderstandings between the plaintiffs and Kullammal, the latter filed a suit in November 1955, O. P. No. 9 of 1956, which ultimately was numbered as O. S. 645 of 1957 in which Kullammal claimed certain rights as against the present plaintiffs. That suit was hotly contested. I am referring to this even at the threshold to indicate whether it was in 1953 or 1956 pronounced hostility existed between the plaintiffs on the one hand and Kullammal on the other.

(3.) MEANWHILE notices passed between the plaintiffs and defendants through their lawyers. In 1956 on behalf of the plaintiffs notices were issued to the tenants as well as to the defendants in which it was claimed that the defendants in which it was claimed that the defendants were relying on some agreement, alleged to have been signed by the plaintiffs. It was also alleged in those notices that in the alleged agreement their (plaintiffs) signatures were obtained by Kullammal by fraudulent mis-representation and that it would not bind their interests. The final reply notice which was sent on behalf of the first defendant is Ex. A-17 dated 4-41957 and the present suit has been filed in July 1957.