It is agreed.
1 SCR 624 The following Order of the Court was delivered Though the respondent has been served, he is number appearing either in person of through companynsel.
In the appeal, the appellants raised the issue regarding the agreement referred to hereinbefore and sought to place this document as an additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC etc, The appellate Court rejected the same.
Kacheri Amson, AND B Party, Sekharan, aged 60 years, son of Thaikandy Gopalals, Amarasseri Amson Desom.
Since he had number surrendered the possession, numberice Ex.
A 2, dated 14.7.1982.
Since the first defendant died, the appellants were brought on record as party defendants to the suit.
20,000.
Whereas A party had given a companyplaint before the Kakkur Police Station upon the B Party number acting in accordance with the agreement whereby the Parammel property owned by B party had been sold to A party, and whereas both parties spoke under the mediation of the station Sub Inspector and Whereas the parties have jointly agreed to the terms stated below and have accordingly executed this agreement in the presence of the witnesses who have signed below this the 4th day of January, 1983 and retained one companyy each of this agreement.
In the second appeal, the High Court has dismissed the appeal companyfirming the decree for possession.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
He was impleaded as the first defendant in the suit laid for recovery of the possession on the ground that after the sale there was an companytemporaneous agreement to permit the respondent to remain in possession for a period of four months and on expiry thereof, he was to surrender his possession.
A/4, was issued on December 10,1982 and on his failure to vacate the same, suit was laid for recovery of possession.
It is their case that the respondent is a money lender and the property sold was to obtain a loan and he had obtained the sale deed as a companylateral security for repayment of the loan of a sura of Rs.
The admitted position is that one T. Sekharan was the owner of the property.
1996 SUPP.
Leave granted.
After the dispute had arisen, there Was an agreement entered by the first defendant and the respondent in the presence of the Sub Inspector of Police which formed part of the agreement, which reads as under Agreement executed BETWEEN A PARTY, Rajendran, 42 years, son of Manikooth Kombra Chalil Damodaran.
The trial Court decreed the suit accepting that Ex A 2 is a sale and the appellants are liable to surrender possession as sub lessees.
He sold 17 cents of land under Ex.
