NATARAJAN Vs. A MAHALINGA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in second appeal nos. 608 and 609 of 1995 filed the suits in O. S. Nos. 29 and 30 of 1989 praying for permanent injunction as against the appellants therein. The appellants in second appeal no. 610 of 1995 filed the suit in O. S. No. 11 of 1989 and the appellant in S. A. No. 611 of 1995 filed O. S. No. 12 of 1989 seeking for a direction to the respondents therein either to receive the sum of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the appellants into court and deliver possession of the suit properties to the appellants or in the alternative to receive the sum of Rs. 5,000/- in discharge of the mortgage and execute sale deed in favour of the appellants and deliver vacant possession of the suit property.

(2.) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 29 and 30 of 1989 were non-suited by the trial court. The defendants in O. S. No. 11 and 12 of 1989 suffered a decree. The first appeals preferred by the plaintiffs in A. S. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1994 preferred by the plaintiffs in O. S. Nos. 29 and 30 of 1989 respectively were allowed. The appeals in A. S. Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994 preferred by the defendants as against the judgment in O. S. Nos. 11 and 12 of 1989 were also allowed. The present second appeal nos. 608 and 609 of 1995 have been preferred by the defendants in O. S. Nos. 29 and 30 of 1989 and the S. A. Nos. 610 and 611 of 1995 were preferred by the plaintiffs in O. S. Nos. 11 and 12 of 1989.

(3.) IT is the case of the appellants that they having received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as loan instead of executing a mortgage deed as the Debt Relief Act was in force, as demanded by the respondents, executed a Deed of conditional sale. The suit properties are valued at Rs. 11,000/ -. But the sale deed was executed with the condition that the respondents would reconvey the property to the appellants after four to five years. Inspite of the demand made by the appellants right from the month of August 1985 to reconvey the suit properties, the first respondent refused to do it. The second respondent who claims to be in possession of the suit property was never in possession of the same. With the aforesaid pleadings, the appellants seek for the prayers as stated supra.