obtained a loan from one Muthukrishnan by showing the suit schedule property and entered into a sale agreement with him. Subsequently, he cancelled the sale agreement with him and revived the same with the present plaintiff to settle his dues to Muthukrishnan again by showing the very same property to the plaintiff and entering into a sale agreement, thus, it is vividly clear that the petitioners have the habit of entering into a sale agreement with the bona fide purchasers solely with an intention to cheat them in order to settle their previous debts, thereby leaving the proposed purchasers at lurch. Moreover, when the case was called, even though the counsel for the petitioners / defendants were present before the Trial Court, the petitioners / defendants had purposely evaded to appear before the Trial Court. Therefore, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and in the presence of the respective counsel, the Trial Court had passed a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff had duly proved his case without any room for suspicion. Hence, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.272 of 2014 by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul has legs to stand and is sustainable.
