VASUDEVA RAJA Vs. RAHAMATH BIVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking the review of the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2017 passed in A.S.No.1294 of 1995, the applicants have laid the review application.

(2.) It is found that the above said first appeal had been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994 passed in O.S. No.71/1987, on the file of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for the reliefs of possession and profits. The plaintiffs claiming title to the suit property by way of purchase of the same from Krishnamurthy on 26.03.1963 and alleging that the review applicants had been put in possession of the suit property by the deceased first plaintiff on account of their acquaintance with the deceased first plaintiff in connection with his business activities and accordingly, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the possession of the suit property by the review applicants is only in the nature of a license and inasmuch as the review applicants failed to deliver the possession of the suit property, despite the demands made with reference to the same, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) The defence has been taken by the review applicants contending that over a long period of time they had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and it is admitted that they had been doing sundry jobs to the first plaintiff, who is engaged in motor mechanical works and accordingly, it is the plea of the review applicants that when they had expressed their intention to purchase a property, according to them, the deceased first plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property to them and in consideration thereof, it is their case that they had entrusted 15 sovereigns of jewels and also the deceased first plaintiff had retained a portion of the salary to which they are entitled to and thus, it is their case that pursuant to the above said arrangement i.e., oral agreement, their possession had been confirmed in respect of the suit property by the deceased first plaintiff and however, the sale deed had not come into existence in respect of the suit property in their favour and they had also not endeavoured to obtain the sale deed immediately from the deceased first plaintiff, on account of the close acquaintance between the parties concerned and as the deceased first plaintiff had agreed to convey the property after the conclusion of the litigation in O.S.No.74/1975, hence, it is their case that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the possession of the suit property from them. It is also found that the review applicants had claimed the benefits of Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act to resist the plaintiffs action.