R.CHANDRASEKAR Vs. B.GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 2 and 3, who were unsuccessful in the suit, have filed an appeal in A.S.848 of 2014, and having lost in the appeal too, have filed this review application, seeking to review the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2018 in A.S.No.848 of 2014.

(2.) It may be relevant to re-state the crux of the facts averred in the plaint, which are as follows : The plaintiffs, are in absolute possession and occupation of the suit property and had availed a loan from the first defendant, mortgaging the property as collateral security. Accordingly, mortgage deed had been entered into by the plaintiffs and the first defendant, wherein, besides the terms and conditions of the mortgagee deed, the mortgagee was empowered with the right to sell the property under Section 69 of Transfer of Property Act. However, the first defendant had brought the suit property to auction sale with the aid of defendants 2 and 4, and pursuant to it, the first defendant had executed a sale deed in favour of second defendant for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, on the pretext of the fake auction sale said to have taken place on 19.2.2005. But the auction sale was not brought to the knowledge of the plaintiffs either by the mortgagee or the auctioneer. Thereafter, vide sale deed dated 22.1.2007, the second defendant settled the property in favour of his wife, the third defendant.

(3.) The plaintiffs being the mortgagor of the property, alleging that the auction sale held on 19.2.2005 and consequential execution of sale deed dated 22.1.2007 are illegal, and contending that the first defendant in collusion with the defendants 2 and 4, had grabbed his property, filed a suit, seeking to set aside the registered sale deed dated 22.01.2007 and for a consequential injunction.