- (1.) Though the respondent has been served, he is not appearing either in person or through counsel.
(2.) Leave granted.
(3.) The admitted position is that one T. Sekharan was the owner of the property. He sold 17 cents of land under Ex. A-2, dated 14/7/1982. 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 a contemporaneous 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. Since he had not surrendered the possession, notice Ex. A/4, was issued on 10/12/1982 and on his failure to vacate the same, suit was laid for recovery of possession. Since the first defendant died, the appellants were brought on record as party defendants to the suit. It is their case that the respondent is a moneylender and the property sold was to obtain a loan and he had obtained the sale deed as a collateral security for repayment of the loan of a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00. 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, Kacheri Amson, AND 'b' Party, Sekharan, aged 60 years, son of Thaikandy Gopalan, Amarasseri Amson Desom. Whereas A Party had given a complaint before the Kakkur Police Station upon the B Party not 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 copy each of this agreement. It is agreed- That B Party shall pay A Party Rs. 35,000. 00 (Rupees thirty-five thousand only) on or before and that the Parammel property in the possession of A Party shall then be given to B Party at his expense. If the B Party acts contrary thereto, he should vacate and hand over the abovesaid Parammel property to A Party. Further, A Party will have the right against B Party to take steps in accordance with law. ";