ABDUL JALIL Vs. MAHABOOB JAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 40 of 1997 on the file of First Additional District Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri reversing the judgment and Decree in S.No. 318 of 1996 on the file of First Additional Sub-Court, Hosur.

(2.) THE plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal. THE respondents herein are the defendants in the suit.

(3.) THE brief case of the defendants are as follows:(i) According to the defendants, the age of the defendants are not mentioned correctly with some ulterior motive. THE fourth defendant was a minor at the time of the filing of the suit. THE correct age of the third defendant is only 19 years. While so the age of the first defendant has been wrongly mentioned as 22. THE correct age of the second defendant is 22 years, but the age of the second defendant has been wrongly mentioned as 24 years.(ii) THE suit property belonged to the defendants 2 to 4 by virtue of a registered Partition Deed dated 14.5.1981. THE said Partition Deed was executed between the sons of Mohammed Ali Saheb. THE 'G' Schedule property in the said Partition Deed is the suit property. As per the said Partition Deed, Yakub Saheb was only given right of management in respect of the 'G' Schedule property, until the defendants 2 to 4 attain majority. THE said Yakub Saheb died on 13.7.1994 after prolonged illness. He was in unconscious state at least for two months prior to his death. THE said Yakub Saheb fell down accidentally on 22.1.1994 and sustained fracture on his hip bone and thigh bone. In spite of the treatment, the said Yakub Saheb died on 13.7.1994. THErefore, the said Yakub Saheb and the second defendant did not execute any agreement as alleged by the plaintiff. THE defendants did not receive Rs. 30,000/- as advance. THE defendants never agreed to execute the sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 55,000/- THE suit property is the absolute property of the defendants 2 to 4 only. THE suit property was let out to the fifth defendant by the said Yakub Saheb on 6.10.1993 for the purpose of running a tailoring shop.(iii) After the death of the said Yakub Saheb, the fifth defendant sublet the suit property to the plaintiff. THErefore, the first defendant, as guardian of the defendants 3 and 4 issued a notice dated 15.11.1994 to the plaintiff and the fifth defendant for delivery of the possession of the suit shop. THE fifth defendant sent a false reply to the notice issued by the first defendant. THE fifth defendant in order to harass the defendants 1 to 4, set up the plaintiff to lay a false claim to the suit property. THE suit has been instituted by the plaintiff at the instigation of the fifth defendant. THE defendants denied the execution of the suit agreement by the said Yakub Saheb and the second defendant. THE suit agreement is a forged document. THE defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.