Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. On perusal of documents produced by the plaintiff, it reveals that Ex.P1, sale agreement dated 23/04/2014, it reveals that defendants have executed the said registered sale agreement in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to suit schedule property. According to defendants, they executed the sale agreement only for security purpose to obtain the loan of Rs.12 lakhs from the plaintiff. But in recital of Ex.P1, i.e., registered sale agreement dated 23/04/2014 nowhere it was stated for the purpose of security, the defendants have executed the sale agreement. It is admitted fact that DW-1 in his cross- examination admitted that they went to Sub-Registrar office at the time of execution of Ex.P1. Further admitted that for his information return the Ex.P1. Further deposed that he has not repaid the loan amount to the plaintiff. Again he stated that he paid the interest upto date. In cross-examination of DW-1, he has deposed that only he executed Ex.P1 for obtaining the loan amount from the plaintiff. But no materials are produced by the defendant to show that for the purpose of security they have executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiffs. Further in cross- examination of DW-1 deposed that during the year 2011, there was financial necessity for the purpose of business. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the partition deed dated 24/08/1950. There is no dispute with respect to the ownership of the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.P3 is the registered sale deed dated 24/03/2007. The said recital of the sale deed reveals that mother of the defendant No.1 executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.P4 is the General Power of Attorney executed by one Govindaraju in favour of the Rajamma i.e., mother of defendant No.1 Ex.P5 is the Encumbrance Certificate three in numbers, Ex.P6 is the khatha certificate two in numbers. In said khatha certificate, defendants' name mentioned as the owner and holders, Ex.P7 is the khatha extract. In the said document also holders name mentioned as that of defendants. Ex.P8 is the khatha registration certificate. In the said document mentioned the name of the mother of defendant No.1. Ex.P9 is the tax paid receipt seven in numbers. In the said document also holders name mentioned as the name of the defendants. Ex.P10 is the notice issued by the plaintiffs to defendant, contents of the notice involve the plaint averments. The same has been served to the defendants as per Ex.P10(a) and (b). It is pertinent to note that defendants have not given any reply to the said notice. Further, the plaintiffs have given one more notice on 29/10/2015 to the defendants. In the said notice also involved plaint averments. The same notice has been served to the defendant as per Ex.P11(b). After service of notice, no reply was sent by the defendants. The documents produced by the plaintiff are supporting their case. Hence, plaintiffs are proved that defendants are owner of suit schedule property. Further, plaintiff counsel decision reported in (2017) 4 S.C.C 654 in the case of A.Kanthamani V/s Nasreen Ahmed wherein it is held that :