HASEEN BANU Vs. SYED HABEEB SAYEEDUDDLN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are connected and hence are disposed of by a common judgment. The main case is L.P.A.No. 156 of 1991 filed against C.C.C.A.No. 120 of 1980 confirming the decree in O.S.No. 233 of 1974. The parties are referred as arrayed in O.S.No. 233 of 1974.

(2.) The partners of the firm Rehnuma-e-Deccan filed suit against the appellant who is the first defendant and her husband, second defendant stating as follows:- The partners of the firm approached the defendants for loan of Rs.20,000/-. The defendants carry on money lending business without any licence under the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act. The second defendant who looks after the affairs of the first defendant agreed to advance loan of Rs. 20,000/- with interest at 18% per annum on the condition that the plaintiffs must secure immovable property. They accordingly executed a sale deed dated 27-6-1961 in favour of defendant No. 1, who executed an agreement of reconveyance on the same day in favour of the firm, undertaking to reconvey the property within three years on receiving payment of Rs. 20,000/-. The plaintiffs also executed rental deed in favour of defendant No. 1 promising to pay rent at Rs. 300/- per month which represented interest. By mutual consent three years period was extended by three more years by a fresh agreement dated 16-6-1964. The first defendant executed a fresh reconveyance agreement on 13-6-1967 stipulating minimum period of three years and maximum period of seven years. Before the expiry of 7 years, the plaintiffs wanted to pay the money and get the reconveyance deed executed. But the defendants with an ulterior motive evaded to receive the money and avoided execution of the reconveyance deed. Hence the suit is filed for directing them to execute reconveyance deed. They have amended the plaint in February, 1979 seeking relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 27-6-1961 is void.

(3.) The plea of the defendant is that the documents have nothing to do with the alleged loan transaction, that they have not executed third agreement of reconveyance on 13-6-1967; that it was the plaintiffs who suggested that the property might be reconveyed in favour of Syed Mahmood Waheeduddin, who was not willing to arrange necessary funds and hence the property could not be reconveyed in his favour. The period stipulated under the agreement dated 16-6-1964 having expired, the plaintiffs are not entitled to ask for reconveyance. The relief of declaration that the sale deed is void is barred by time.