Madras High Court
Pavayammal vs Saraswathi
S.A.No.202 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 30.01.2024 Pronounced on: 23.02.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
S.A.Nos.202 & 203 of 2018
and
CMP. Nos.5164 and 5165 of 2018
Pavayammal
...Appellant in both S.A.s
Vs.
1.Saraswathi
2.Chinnusamy
...Respondents in S.A. No.202 of 2018
1.Chinnusamy
2.Saraswathi
.Respondents in S.A. No.203 of 2018
COMMON PRAYER: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated
12.10.2015 made in A.S. Nos.34 & 35 of 2014 on the file of the learned
Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode reversal of the
judgment and decree dated 30.08.2013 made in O.S. No.218 of 2008 & 124
of 2010 on the file of the learned Second Additional Sub Court, Erode by
allowing this Second Appeal.
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.202 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.N.Manokaran in both S.As
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramesh for
Mr.M.Guruprasad in both S.As.
COMMON JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S. No.218 of 2008 and the defendant in O.S. No. 124 of 2010 is the appellant in both these Second Appeals.
2. The brief facts that are necessary to decide these Second Appeals are as follows:-
2.1. The appellant alleged that she had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-
from the respondents, to meet her family expenses, and that the respondents also agreed to the same, subject to payment of interest by the appellant at the rate of Rs.3/- per hundred, per month. It is the case of the appellant that the respondents insisted on the appellant executing a registered power of attorney in favour of the first respondent, besides also handing over the original title deed. It was agreed that the loan would be repaid within three years. Having no other option, as the appellant was in urgent need of 2/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 money, she executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the first defendant on 23.09.2004, on which date, she has borrowed the said sum of Rs.50,000/-. The appellant further claims that she has paid periodical interest on the said amount, right from 23.10.2004 onwards. The appellant was unable to return the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of three years, but however, she discharged the debt in the month of January 2008.
2.2. The respondents demanded penal interest and consequently, higher amount, which the appellant refused to pay and therefore, misunderstanding arose amongst the parties. In the first week of March 2008, the respondents came to the suit property and demanded the appellant to vacate the suit property, stating that the second respondent had purchased the same from the first respondent, representing the appellant as power agent. On enquiries, the appellant came to know about the collusive sale transaction and has instituted the suit stating that there was no necessity for her to sell the property and that she was very much available in the same locality and there was no occasion for her to go out of station, thereby, warranting execution of a power of attorney. She has also denied receipt of 3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed in favour of the second respondent.
2.3. She has further stated that the property would fetch much more in the market and the respondents have brought about the sale deed to grab the valuable property of the appellant. The appellant, therefore, sought for the relief of declaration that sale deed dated 28.12.2007, was not true and genuine and not binding on the appellant. Further, she also sought for the relief of injunction to restrain the respondents from trespassing into the suit property or disturbing her peaceful possession and enjoyment.
3. A written statement was filed by the respondents, stating that the appellant never approached them for any loan and they have also not lent any amount to the appellant on 23.09.2004, or any other date. The claim of the appellant that she was paying periodical interest is also denied. The respondents also claimed that the debt was settled and discharged in the month of January, 2008 and that the respondents' demand of penal interest was also denied. The other claims that the appellant had no intention to sell the property and that she never went out of station and that there was no 4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 necessity to execute the power of attorney and that she never received the sale consideration and that the property was worth more than Rs.5,00,000/- were all stoutly denied.
4. The respondents also contended that on 12.01.2004, the appellant has entered into an agreement with one A.Shanmugasundaram, agreeing to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was paid as an advance. The time period fixed in the said agreement was three years and the agreement was also duly registered as Document No.48 of 2004. However, the respondents case is that subsequently, both the parties decided to cancel the agreement dated 12.01.2004 and approached the second respondent who was doing real estate business, for finding a suitable buyer. As both the appellant and the said A.Shanmugasundaram, were insisting on immediate payment of money, the second respondent agreed to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
5. On 23.09.2004, the appellant received the entire sum of 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 Rs.1,00,000/- in the presence of A.Shanmugasundaram and on the same date, the agreement between the appellant and the said A.Shanmugasundaram was cancelled by a registered document. An agreement of sale was entered into between the appellant and the second respondent which was also registered on the same day. The power of attorney, which is set out in the plaint was also executed on the same day in favour of the first respondent and registered as document No.848/Book- 4/2004. Apart from this, a Varthamana Letter was also executed by the appellant in favour of the second respondent, on the same day, which however was not registered.
6. According to the respondents, the appellant gave symbolic possession of the suit property to the second respondent and undertook to vacate and hand over vacant possession, as and when the power of attorney agent was able to find a buyer. It is the specific case of the respondents that as the appellant continued to be in possession, purchasers were not willing to buy the suit property and therefore, having no other option, on 28.12.2007, the first respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 second respondent and the same was registered as Document No.3606/Book-1/2007, with prior intimation being made to the appellant and with her consent.
7. According to the respondents, the appellant promised to vacate the suit property on or before 15.01.2008 and despite the same, she did not vacate and subsequently, the second respondent allowed the appellant to occupy the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. The second respondent, subsequent to his purchase, has been paying all property taxes, water taxes and also obtained drinking water tank connection at his costs and the appellant has been enjoying all these facilities without honouring her commitment to vacate the suit property. According to the respondents, the sale deed was a true and genuine document and the allegations made by the appellant were all false and concocted.
8. On the strength of similar averments and allegations, the respondents filed a suit in O.S. No.124 of 2010 for recovery of possession and damages for the use and occupation from the appellant. The appellant 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 herein filed her written statement reiterating the averments and allegations in the first suit in O.S. No.218 of 2008.
9. Both the suits were tried together by the trial Court and, in and by judgement and decree dated 30.08.2013, the suit filed by the appellant was decreed and suit filed by the respondents for recovery of possession was dismissed. The respondents preferred two First Appeals in A.S. Nos.35 and 35 of 2014, and on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant and decreed the suit filed by the respondents.
10. Aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the First Appellate Court, the appellant has preferred the above Second Appeals. On 15.03.2018, the above Second Appeals have been admitted on the following three substantial questions of law:-
'a. Whether the sale deed dated 28.12.2007 (Ex.B8) 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 executed by the 2nd respondent/wife in the name of the 1st respondent/husband in the capacity of the power agent of the appellant is valid in law, particularly when the respondents have failed to discharge the burden of proving the fact that the transaction was perfect fair and reasonable?
b. Whether the first appellate Court is right in misquoting Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to non-suit the appellant especially when the date of execution, attestor, scribe and the relationship between the parties to the Ex.B4 to Ex.B7 all dated 23.09.2004, which would expose clear case of collusion, fraud and misrepresentation?
c.Whether the judgment fo the first appellate court is perverse for wrongly placing the burden of proof in violation of Section 111 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in view of the law laid down in Krishna Mohan Kul case (2004) 9 SCC 464?'
11. I have heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Ramesh for Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court as well as the judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018
12. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that all was not well with the transactions, especially when on the same date i.e., 23.09.2004, four documents came to be executed. There was no necessity for the appellant to sell her property in the first place and there was no necessity for executing a power of attorney also, especially since the appellant was very much residing in the suit property and there was no occasion to leave town for any reason whatsoever.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.N.Manokaran, would further invite my attention to the findings of the trial Court which according to him, were based on the evidence adduced by the parties and further he would contend that the sale deed executed by the wife as power agent in favour of the husband was not supported by consideration and it was hit by Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He would further states that there was no necessity for a three year time period also, when the entire money had been paid. He would also take me through the four documents executed on 23.09.2004, viz., Exhibits B4, B5, B6=A1 and B7. Exhibit 10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 B4 is the cancellation deed of the sale agreement with A.Shanmugasundaram; Exhibit B5 is the registered sale agreement between the appellant and the second respondent; Exhibt B6 = Exhibit A1 is the registered power of attorney executed by the appellant in favour of the first respondent and Exhibit B7 is the Varthamana Consent Deed which was admittedly unregistered and executed by the appellant in favour of the second respondent.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the burden of proof to establish that the sale transaction Exhibit B8, sale deed dated 28.12.2007 was a true and fair transaction, was on the respondents. He would also state that the First Appellate Court has erroneously placed the burden on the appellant, which was a clear violation of the mandate of Section 111 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Further, he would states that besides the four documents being executed on the same day, the witnesses to all these four documents are one and the same and the scribe was also the same for all the four documents and therefore, it would clearly establish a clear case of collusion and fraud played by the respondents, in connivance 11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 with the witnesses as well as the scribe. He would further state that the First Appellate Court had erred in non suiting the appellant, in view of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act and states that when the appellant had clearly pleaded fraud and collusion, Section 92 of the Evidence Act, cannot be pressed into service. The learned counsel for the appellant would further states that the appellant was an illiterate lady and the respondents have taken advantage of the same and grabbed the suit property and only when the respondents visited and demanded her to vacate the suit property, she came to know about the fraud played by them and subsequently, she instituted the suit.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant would place reliance on the following decisions:-
● Krishna Mohan Kul Alias Nani Charan Kul and Another Vs. Pramtima Maity and Others reported in (2004) 9 SCC 468; ● Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online Sc 1097;
● Kamireddi Sattiaraju and others Vs. Kandamuri Boolaeswari reported in 2007 -3-L.W.580 ;12/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 ● Muddasani Venkata Narasaiah (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Muddasani Sarojana reported (2016) 12 SCC
288. (1980 ) 1 SCC 52; and ● S.B.Noronah Vs. Prem Kumari Krishna reported in (1980) 1 SCC 59.
16. Per contra, Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondents states that the sale deed was a true and fair transaction and admittedly, the appellant had executed and registered the said power of attorney and never chose to cancel the same at any point of time and only during the subsistence of the power of attorney, the sale deed came to be executed. Further, he would take me through the pleadings of the respondents to fortify his contentions that the circumstances under which the sale deed came to be registered in favour of the second respondent have been clearly pleaded. He would also take me through the oral evidence, especially cross examination of P.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.4, which according to the learned counsel for the respondents would clearly prove that the sale deed in Exhibit.B8, was valid and a legal document, binding on the appellant.
17. With regard to the illiteracy of the appellant, the learned counsel 13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 for the respondents would submit that there is no pleading that the respondents took advantage of the appellant’s illiteracy and therefore, according to him, the burden was only on the appellant to establish that the sale deed was sham and nominal and that it was not binding on her. He would also refer to the evidence of the witnesses to the transactions viz., D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.4 who have all stated that they knew the appellant and the respondents, especially the second respondent was a stranger to them and even the witnesses who stated they knew the second respondent have categorically stated that they knew the second respondent only through the appellant.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents further stated that the appellant was also not as innocent as she claims to be and in this regard, he would take me through the portions of her cross examination to show that the appellant was not speaking the truth. This apart, the learned counsel for the respondents would state that though the appellant chose to plead that the debt was discharged, she has not produced any positive evidence in that regard, which could have clearly established her case that the transaction 14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 between the appellant and the second respondent was only a loan transaction and not a sale transaction.
19. The learned counsel for the respondents would also place reliance on the evidence of P.W.3 who was examined on the side of the appellant herself and according to the learned counsel for the respondents, P.W.3 is a neutral person and his evidence has not gone to the aid of the appellant, in any manner whatsoever. Similarly, he would also place reliance on the evidence of P.W.2 and contend that even the evidence of P.W.2 was not in any way helping the appellant’s case. On the contrary, the witnesses to the documents dated 23.09.2004 as well as scribe have categorically stated that only at the instance of the appellant, they have signed these documents as witnesses and that they have spoken about the money being paid by the respondents 1 and 2 to the appellant on the said date and they have also spoken about due execution of Ex.B4, Ex.B5, Ex.B6 =Ex.A1 and Ex.B7.
20. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 the following decisions:-
● Gordon Woodroffe and Company (Madras ) Ltd Vs. Shaik M.A. Majid and Company reported in (1966) SCC Online SC 87; ● T.G.Pongiannan Vs. K.M.Natarajan and another reported in (2009) SCC online Mad 686;
● Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and others Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo reported in (2009) 5 SCC 713; and ● S.Chattanatha Kurayalar Vs. Central Bank of India Ltd and others reported in 165 SCC Online SC 67
21. I have paid my anxious and careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
22. On going through the pleadings in both the suits, one thing that emerges clearly is that the appellant categorically admits to the execution of a Power of Attorney in favour of the first respondent. However, it is only the reason for execution of the power of attorney which is sought to be explained by the appellant, by contending that the said power of attorney was executed only as a security for a loan transaction and not intended to be acted upon. On a reading of the said power of attorney, Exhibit B6=A1, 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 it is seen that the appellant has conferred various powers on the agent viz., the first respondent, including letting out and selling, apart from managing the suit property. The plaint filed by the appellant is totally silent about the other documents executed by her on the very same day. Infact, two of the said documents are registered documents viz., the cancellation of the sale agreement dated 12.01.2004 in favour of A.Shanmugasundaram viz., Exhibit B4 and the sale agreement being executed and registered in favour of the second respondent viz., Exhibit B5. The Varthamana consent deed Exhibit B7 was alone unregistered.
23. In the written statement filed by the appellant in O.S. No.124 of 2010, the appellant has chosen to deny the documents executed on 23.09.2004, Paragraph 5 of the written statement dated 16.08.2010, is extracted for easy reference:-
" The allegations in the plaint that on 23.09.2004, the defendant received the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- in the rpesence of the said agreement holder by name A.Shanmugasundaram, that as per the busincess practice 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 in the real estate business, a deed of cancellation, canceling the agreement dated 12.01.2004 between the defendant and A.Shanmugasundaram; an agreement of sale betweent the 1st plaintiff and defendant; a General power of attorney deed executed by the defendant in favour of 2nd plaintiff; a Varthamana letter have been executed by the defendant in favourt of the 1st plaintiff are all false and the same are denied by this defendant"
Apart from the above, nowhere in the written statement, the appellant speaks about the execution of four documents, especially since three of which are registered instruments, the execution of which, cannot be denied so casually by the appellant.
24. Further, in the plaintiff’s cross examination on 22.12.2011, she states that the second respondent never demanded vacant possession. The same is not only contrary to her pleadings in the suits, one in the plaint and the other in the written statement, but goes against her very cause of action. The appellant’s case is that only when the second respondent demanded vacant possession of the suit property, she came to know about the collusion and fraud played by the respondents and thereafter, she has applied for 18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 certificate copies and came to know that Ex.B8, sale deed had been fraudulently executed and registered behind her back.
25. Further, she has stated that she alone resides in the suit property and there were no tenants from whom she is getting rents. She has also stated that she does not have any bank account in Andhra Bank. A specific suggestion has been put to the appellant as P.W.1 with regard to the unsuccessful attempts to sell the property, which necessitated the power agent executing a sale deed in favour of the second respondent, especially, since the entire sale consideration had been paid. It is also suggested to the appellant that in real estate transactions, the documents in the nature of Exhibits B5, B6 and B7 were common and in practice.
26. P.W.2 who was examined on the side of the appellant has stated that he does not know about the execution of the sale deed, Exhibit A1 and he has also stated that he did not witness the transactions and that he was not personally aware of what transpired between the appellant and the respondents. He also stated that he was not aware of the nature of 19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 documents executed on 23.09.2004. Further, curiously, P.W.2 who is the appellant’s witness has stated that for financial matters, the appellant would not take P.W.2 along.
27. P.W.3, the prior agreement holder was summoned to the Court. He has stated that he is a neutral witness and he has spoken about the cancellation of his agreement of sale on receipt of the money payable to him. He has also stated that the witnesses to the said cancellation were brought only by the appellant. He has also stated that at the time of registration of the cancellation deed, the respondents were not inside the Sub Registrar's Office, but were only waiting outside. Further P.W.3, has also stated that the property has been tenanted and the appellant has collecting rents and that the appellant has a bank account in Andhra Bank.
28. From the above, it is made clear that the evidence of both witnesses examined on the side of the appellant viz., P.W.2 and P.W.3 appears to be natural and especially, since they have been examined on the side of the appellant, thier evidence assumes more significance. Their 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 evidence appears to be not only natural, but also credible. In fact, evidence of P.W.3, goes against the case pleaded by the appellant. I have also found from cross examination of the appellant that she has even denied executing and registering the cancellation deed viz., Ex.B4. Majority of the witnesses examined at trial have categorically stated that it was only the appellant who requested them to attest the documents. Strangely, the appellant has never chosen to examine the said witnesses, especially, when her case is that the respondents have brought about these documents by playing fraud and in a collusive manner. The scribe of the four documents has also been examined and he has also stated that the documents were executed only as per the instructions of the parties and nothing much has been brought about in his cross examination also. The First Appellate Court, has rightly re-assessed and re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and proceeded to reverse the findings rendered by the trial Court.
29. Insofar as the legal contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, in Krishna Mohan Kul's case, referred herein supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with Section 111 of the Indian 21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 Evidence Act, 1872, where the onus of proof in cases of transaction executed in fiduciary relationships, when plea of fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation are taken would be different and the onus would be on beneficiary under the document, irrespective of the fact whether such party is the defendant or plaintiff. However, I am unable to apply the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case. There is no occasion for shifting the onus, citing fiduciary relationship between the parties. The appellant’s conduct has also been discussed hereinabove elaborately. The respondents were never in a dominant position in order to bring the appellant’s case within Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act.
30. In Kewal Krishan's case, referred herein supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, held that in the absence of sale consideration, the sale will not be valid. This decision also will not come to rescue of the appellant for the simple reason that the respondents have pleaded and established that the entire sale consideration has been paid on 23.09.2004 and only becuase of the second respondent doing real estate business, in order to sell the 22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 property and find a perspective buyer, the power of attorney was registered and the same is also confirmed by Ex.B7, Varthamana letter, when the appellant undertakes not to cancel the power of attorney. In addition, the sale agreement was also executed and registered in favour of the second respondent, on the same day.
31. In Muddasani Venkata Narasaiah's case, referred herein supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there were no effective cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses with respect to execution of sale deed. However, I do not find any such lacuna in the present case. In fact, it is the appellant who has taken false and contradictory stands, besides also, not even pleading as to how the respondents played fraud or brought about the sale deed by collusion, undue influence and misrepresentation. The plaint allegations are also vague as already pointed out, there is no evidence whisper about three other documents executed on the same day, two of which, are registered documents.
32.In Kamireddi Sattiaraju's case, referred herein supra, the Division 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 Bench of this Court referred to Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and held that though a document in writing has been admitted, it would be open to a party to putforth a plea that it was never intended to be acted upon. The said decision also will not help the appellant in any manner, since the appellant has failed to establish, by specific pleadings and also oral and documentary evidence that there was a loan transaction only, for which, as a security, the power of attorney was executed. Despite specifically having taken a plea that the debt was discharged, the appellant has not been able to substantiate the claim by letting any satisfactory evidence during trial.
33. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Gordon Woodroffe and Company (Madras) Ltd's case, referred herein supra, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even a power agent can become a purchaser, on payment of the sale consideration to the principal. In T.G.Pongiannan's case case, referred herein supra, this Court held that it was not open to a party to contend that the terms contained in a written instrument cannot be contradicted and it is only open to the party to setup a case that the said written document as a whole was never intended to be 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 acted upon.
34. In Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain's case, referred herein supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the sale deed being a registered document, the onus of proof would be only on the vendor to show that the sale deed was not executed or that it did not reflect the true nature of the transaction. In the very same judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the document must be construed in its entirety and when the plaintiff comes to Court seeking recovery of possession, if he is able to establish that the sale deed was duly executed and was neither a sham transaction nor represented the transaction of a different character, then he would be entitled to succeed.
35. In S.Chattanatha Kurayalar's case, referred herein supra, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a transaction contained more than one document, then they must be interpreted together and they have the same legal effect, for all the purposes, as if it is one document. Applying the above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the four documents 25/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 came to be executed on 23.09.2004 and the respondents have examined the witnesses as well as scribe and they have categorically established that the appellant has executed these documents. Strangely, the appellant does not even mention about the three documents apart from the power of attorney, which alone is pleaded in the plaint. As already discussed, even in the written statement in the suit for recovery of possession, she has very casually chosen to deny the execution of all four documents, though in her plaint, she admits the execution of the power of attorney.
36. Thus, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court. The substantial questions of law are all answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. The appellant shall vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit property to the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, subject to her filing an affidavit of undertaking within 10 days from today. In the event of the appellant not filing an undertaking affidavit within 10 days from today, it shall be open to the respondents to execute the decree forthwith.
26/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018
37. Accordingly, the Second Appeals stand dismissed with the above observations and directions. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
23.02.2024
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No.
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rkp
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode.
2. The Second Additional Sub Court, Erode.
27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.202 of 2018 P.B.BALAJI, J, rkp S.A.Nos.202 & 203 of 2018 and CMP. Nos.5164 and 5165 of 2018 23.02.2024 28/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis