A G VENKATACHALAM Vs. P GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2017 made in A.S.No.20 of 2015 on the file of the Fourth Additional District Court, Erode District at Bhavani confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2015 made in O.S.No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani.

(2.) The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents 1 to 10 are the defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 11 in O.S.No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani. The appellants filed the said suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.06.2006 or in alternative for return of advance amount of Rs.2,25,000/- paid by them together with interest. Originally, the suit was filed against the respondents 1 to 7 and one Latha w/o N.Kumar. Subsequently, the respondents 8 to 10 were impleaded as defendants 10 & 11. Pending appeal, the 7th defendant Latha died. The present Second Appeal is against the defendants 1 to 6 and defendants 8 to 11.

(3.) The first respondent filed written statement and the same was adopted by respondents 2 to 7 and 7th defendant denying all the averments made by the appellants. They denied that they agreed to sell the property to the appellants. They denied the alleged compromise in the earlier suit, O.S.No.50 of 2005. According to the respondents 1 to 7 and 7th defendant, they did not agree to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and denied receipt of Rs.2,25,000/- as advance and one year time was fixed for completion of agreement of sale. According to them, the respondents 1 & 6 urgently required a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- during June 2006 and the second appellant arranged the said loan with the first appellant, the first appellant insisted respondents 1 & 6 to execute a sale agreement as a security for repayment, as a condition for advancing the loan. Since the respondents 1 & 6 urgently required the money, they agreed for the terms of the first appellant and executed the suit agreement of sale. They did not have any intention to sell the property but it is only a security document. The respondents 1 to 6 have already entered into an agreement of sale with respondents 8 to 10 on 18.02.2006 to sell the suit property and sold the same to the respondents 8 to 10 by deed of sale dated 11.02.2008 and therefore the respondents 8 to 10 are necessary parties and prayed for dismissal of the suit.