IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EBANGALORE
DATED THIS "ma 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019*-._bT
BEFORE .. .
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s.N.sATYANA£'%gf§YAfV:'A:"' "
RsA.NO.8g2Og5;_'''«. «_
Between
sm.N.soma§;ha Gowda,
S/O late Nanjegowda,
Major, [/0 Arahalli,
Kasaba Hobli,
Kola: Taluk,
Kolar District.
{by sri.K.H.s;5r:§g;:a£:eagei:? ;a_;:'rv} '~
And:
1. ;VVSrnt;'¥T"u1':i'_aII1»f'ir'ié1, .
'W/=O'1-ate'Muniyappav---., ' -
Major. A
2. V . _V Sri.N;'N§i1'a.yané1sWi1iI1y,
S/0 late Muniyappa,
~ ' " . . . . . .. '
T. 'VSri."Vé:r;l{ates11:1;..>pa,
V' 'E3/'O. _lat¢ Gopalappa,
' V Majér
AH .1'./' O «ifxrahalli
Kas-¢1ba«..Hob11, Kolar Taluk,
O Kolarf-)istOrictt.
" --..VV'{b}{5Sri.G.Papireddy, Adv for R3,
Rl&'2.msd.,)
... Respondents
W
– 4 –
come to the Subwregistrafs office at Kolar. But, they did not
come on the day they assured to be present before the Sub–
registrar. After several such attempts, he got a panchayath
held to get defendants I and 2 advised, which eridedjiiriv
Thereafter, he got a legai notice issued on : V’
upon them to come to SubAregistrar’s~ office.’ at andt_to._
execute the registered sale deed con’veyinlg’lthe”s_uit psclie_titile«:.
property in his favour. Thou-gli….the said duly * it
served on defendants l__ and did not “re,sponkl to the
same and deliberately qAui.te.i;i;Ieiicté fiied the suit for
specific performance g.frV.,agree1nentl ‘of deed dated
27.3.1989.
Svfiltllis aisol case”‘–that prior to filing of suit he came
to know that defendants’ and 2 have sold and conveyed
< sur'_.t_' prop'ert.y«in favour of 3" defendant, for nominal
defeat the legitimate claim of plaintiff in
securing' sale deed of suit schedule property.
Pursuant to said sale deed defendants 1 to 3 are attempting
A tol"cau.se obstruction to plaintiffs peaceful possession,
cultivati()r1 and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Hence
"*1
_ 5 _
S. In addition, 3?" defendant has pleaded that
defendants l and 2 have sold suit schedule property to him
on 25.5.1989 for a sum of ?.56,()()()/–, obtained advancesum
of 16,000/– on that day and executed an agreement
agreeing to execute regular sale deed within *
from that day by receiving the ba1anee_ 'sale "c'oVnei'tier'ati_.'on tofu V'
$50,000/~ at the time of registration iofAtl1e"sal'e:'d€etj:;ae,,..AItI1,1S
his case that defendants 1 dldvnot pe1*formv.tl1Ve1r
of contract within the stipulat:e'd:_ti–11_1e. he} issued a
legal notice to defeririants *i?,_'».call1_:1g upon them to
complete sale ,trar1sa.ctin:.r_1'*~.pursuant. Vt"oi_'–agreement dated
25.5.1989," 1%n'tenablje""V.'reply was sent by 18*'
(1efen'dant.; "filed" a Suit in OS.No.105/1989 on
1.8.198§'g;:: the'fiIRe.of Civil Court, Koiar. The said suit
uposted V"t0.V:v19./$1990. Before the hearing date on
defendants 1 and 2 approached him, made
._ f,~e_rsistz1 of ?.50,0()0/- in return of which they
.A wtyuldébe willing and ready to execute the Sale deed in terms
” ,,,_Vef..:tl1e agreement of sale dated 25.5.1989, for the reasoe/,\
– 7 –
that they had to perform marriage of the daughter of 1st.
defendant and sister of 2″‘ defendant on 22.3.1990. In this
behalf, the 1st defendant who was busy in preparation of
marriage executed a registered power of attorn.efy~_ on
13.3.1990 enabling her son 2′” defendant to execate’ t–hf_e— _
deed of suit land to 3″‘ defendant. The 3*” 1′
sale deed prepared, executed and registered, on
paying balance sale consideration lt: iS’:”§I’1′.iV€~s
case that balance sale consideratiori of ?.f50.,(:1(J(l:/– was paid
by him before the Sub–Registr;ir the tliflfi of registrafiorl of
sale deed executed in his favourand tofeffect there is a
recital in the of 3?” defendarzt
that at’lthe– timed’of”e9€eeiiii;§f;._and registration of sale deed of
suit sct1ecIule”p,roperty: i11..l”1_.’is’ favour, defendants 1 and 2 put
pcssessnion of suit schedule property. He has been in
.Ae’xe,l_asi.yAeVA.possession of the same from that date till date of
filiiigp «of’wr_ii’,teri’ ‘statement.
fit is further contended by 3″ defendant that
“”fl.A’plaintiff was quite aware of the fact that this defendant has
ehtered in to agreement with defendants 1 and 2 for
-10-
3″‘ clefendant examined himself as DW.2 and in addition got
other seven witnesses examined as DWs.1 and 3 to 8 and got
marked documents I’:3z;s.I) .1 to 8 in support of his case§r.._i”._
8. trial Court, on appreciation of H
oral and documentary evidence on record,–.proceeded tc.
decree the suit holding issue Nos. Lto
issue partly in affirmative and .partly’ .in”negati’Je;»5″H an;(il’6t?1.”» ~’
issues in affirrnative and aciciiticnal issue in negative. In the
result, trial Court answereii ti1el”issufes in” favour of
plaintiff, in the aifir:native_and one, was framed in
favour of 3*” §de’fendant._ in negative;_’Acc_ofrdingiy the suit was
decreed defendants E to 3 to execute the
sale deed of suii;_.p”roperty in favour of plaintiff. 3m
defendant in _whose favour a registered sale deed in respect
‘l V’ A0f…’,;i1ii?.”iSCli£3t1i1le is already in existence challenged
and decree by filing a regular appeal in
on the file of Civil Judge {Sr.Dn), Kolar on
5.9. i~919t.:-..
“”‘i
~11-
9. in the said appeal, plaintiff was 1*” respondent and
defendants I and 2 were respondents 2 and 3.
respondent who was plaintiff in original suit ~
appearance through Counsel. Defendants 1′ and
respondents 2 and 3 in the regular apgpiealliagain
absent in the first appeal.
10. in the first appeal; tirade
an application seeking to filed by
him and for production of ‘xivhich was
allowed by 1st. judgment
and decree Iaassiod rexnanded the matter
to The said judginent of 13*
appellate! ” tiliailenged by plaintiff in
MSA,No.5/l9Q:3’ at the ‘file of this Court, which was allowed
‘~ , dated T{.”I$l93 with the following observation:
appellate court is hereby directed to
A diesues arising out of allowing the
irlterlooutory application seeking amenclment
p it add production of addiiionai evidence and
remand the matter to the trial Court with a
direction to give opportunity to both the parties
(“T
-12..
on record to lead evidence on particular issue or
issues and thereafter to send its report to the
appellate court. After receipt of the report thefy”»c.
appellate Court shall dispose of the
merits on aii issues arising out of the C”
matter of the suit. As such, this ‘A
allowed. The judgment p_assed_’:
the 2LPI>ei2ate Court is set it I It
1}. Thereafter, regular
appeal, framed addifioiiai’ issiie;ej_ar’1ei=– of it directing
tria} Court to record issues and to
resubmit it this order Was
aiso ..iri”CRl§f.1’V\io.Ai26/1994: on the file
of this pbty its order dated 12.1.2001
dismissed framing of additional issue
directi;;.g”tri.a} Court to record evidence is in tune with
order puassedi by this Court in MSA.5/1993. In the light
C’ ._of’.._ppthVesey.._o.rd’erS, trial Court recorded evidence of 3″‘
defe11d..autv,”‘”‘ appeiiant before the 3.3’ appellate Court on
A. additioria} issues relating to the status of bonafide purchaser
for-value without notice of prior transaction. It is seen that
“”1
-14-
established Ex.Pl as a concocted document to defeat his
rights under Exs.D5 and 6 and held that jiidgmentfszand
decree of trial Court is perverse, illegal and not_..1?_iise(l:’ori’-«V
evidence on record and requires interference. ‘Whileceidoing.
so, it held that W respondent who was plaintiff in tribal
failed to prove execution of VEx.PTf:prior to “exeeution”~of
Exs.D5 and 6 agreement and””V.sale V. deed..L”exeeuted’V’ by if f
defendants 1 and 2 in l’ayor1rA..o’f’ ‘defendant;–.. with this.
claim of plaintiff was urged by 3”
defendant were4.lupheI(.:iA.VH by the
judgment dlpstdméyppeggate cguyt in
reversing—Vthfe’~Vfinding has come up in this
appeal; = ‘
;’ ~13. 113″ ‘proceeding, notice was duly served on all
res’poni:l’ent”sz_ howeifer, only 3″ respondent entered
flV€’~…v:’.3Td defendant in trial Court. As in the earlier
twn ;)ro£eedings, respondents 1 and 2 i.e., defendants 1 and
2 in “trial Court remained absent in this proceeding also.
Court after hearing Counsel for appellant admitted the
appeal framing the following substantial questions of lawn
‘*1
_ 15 .
” 1) Whether the first appellate Court was right in
reversing the judgment and decree of the trial
Court in not accepting Ex.P.”i, when the fi1’St
deferidant, who is another co–owner of the
property, had adrnitted the same in the written.
statement filed by her in 08.105/89 and f1n*’ti’rer;. , ”
the first appellate court was right in throjlwvixtg-.1
the burden upon the plaintiff’
defendant had taken up piea said’:-tr,__. A’
document is ante~dated and fabricated? , V’ 1
2) Whether the first appell’ate’»Court”wastrigtitgéiriw
not accepting the:writt.e:1″‘staterrrent I£§{,F’8
by the first defendant., in 89 on the
file of the _1_earned__AV:ddl. which
filed bylhthe Sifixldeiendant for specific
perftmrnaance-.agai’iist”defendants 1 and 2 and
whether the iindingsléand the reasons recorded
A. -by .first..app’ellate Court on the contentious
poirits hoIding..tI’1at EXP} is not proved by
drawi.r.1g~Vac1verse inference and non–surnmoriing
:”dVot:u:iment registration register and mark it
th_rgiu’g§_hi:: PW.3 is in conformity with
V ” ..s’e;:s;57,5s,67,74, 75 and so of the Evidence
i it Aw
Um.’
– 16 –
14. After looking in to the pleadings, the documents
relied upen by both parties in Courts below and eviderzce
and judgment of 1*” appellate Court, this Court answer
substantiai questions of iaw in affirmative for the ‘4 3
REASONS
Heard the counsel for appellant’ ‘1
regarding substantia} questions_ of 1a§arAfra;nedTi:.$y’.tIi1is court”
at the time of admission of this’V’a;tf:$V'[;ea}, 1)erused;V-itheiéfindings
given by the courts .§:’$e~},ow tiieirjuj-udgmentsfv Before
answering the aforesaid of law this
Court would 1ike’:to’1’ana:fyse two ‘setsj_ofv and events with
referezfieeffffto retfheirfé contended by piairztiff and ST”
defendant in the
15. eouidffbe esteem from records 3*” defendant
enteiged “into liagreernent with defendants 1 and 2 on
» foripurrchase of suit schedule property. The saie
ife¢:;s:;eer2;t1aa;:§156,000/–. At the time of entering into
a sum of ?”.6,000/- is paid as advance and
if 3.50.000/~ is agreed to be paid at the time of
ierrectitiorz and registration of saie deed in favour of 3″‘
“”1
– 17 –
defendant. In the said agreement, time is also fixed for
registration of sale deed i.e., the said sale deed should be
executed and completed Within three months from
25.5.1989. Thereafter, it is seen that 3″l defendant ..has
issued a legal notice to defendants 1 and 2 on
calling upon them to receive balance sale consideratioiiifandv ~
execute sale deed, which is at Ex.D_8.-… To av.’
reply is sent. by 181 defendant on 19.7~.,.195l’39-.: the
she denies entering into of V 33*
defendant, wherein she t:a.tegt)rioailVlyu é%’E§1te$’fi1u9:~t:»sl~§l§has not
entered into any agrere1ra:e}:tAv§rith_ _for sale of said
property. The said reply, she
denied V’-her lerzeot-rte” sale deed in favour of 3″‘
defendant.”.,_’Ihereafter,” seen that a suit for specific
V. perforniahce islnfiledv by’:i’3″* defendant on 1.8.1989 numbered
During the pendency of said suit
heffore anj)_b_od$f”eould file written statement it is seen that
deie’n.cla5nts’vll’V’and 2 have agreed to settle the dispute between
]then1selves and 31″” defendant. In this behalf 131- defendant
ll and registered. a Power of Attorney in favour of her
.1″?
-18-
son authorising him to convey suit schedule property in
favour of Sr” defendant on behalf of himself and also on her
behalf. Thereafter, on 15.3.1990 the sale deed 1s executed.
To the said sale deed 13* defendant also affixed her signature.
Thereafter, on 16.3.1990 the said sale deed is registe1*e_d–cTii1A4
the office of sub-registrar. In the ineanwi1ilve,VV”=said'”: 9′
OS.No. 105/ 1989, which was pendingbefore coi,trtV”li)eiow if V’
was posted to 19.4.1989. Now leaving
defendant at this stage, let i.1s.afr;-alyseA’the d.at’e.sA = 9′
pertaining to the transaction ofVp.1e:.i~r1_tiff._V
18. Plaintiffs case”‘is”that.Lhiig’ent:ere§i’i:1to an agreement
with 27.3.1989 for purchase of suit
schedule eipropertydfor consideration of €6,000/–.
On 4jthe_ same ._da’y”, he paid entire sale consideration.
Aeclording tohim, Fragmentation Act, which was in force as
oni’_-did not permit registration of suit schedule
property ‘irifhis name. Hence, execution and registration of
sale deed was deferred. Instead, parties entered into an
9’ agreement wherein vendors, defendants 1 and 2 received
d x V entire sale consideration. delivered vacant possession of suit
“*1
-19..
schedule property in favour of plaintiff. It is seen that
thereafter, nothing has been done by plaintiff until
22.3.1990. On that day a notice is issued by him to
defendants 1 and 2 calling upon them to execute sale deed of
suit schedule property in his favour. In the said
which is at ECx.P2 there is no reference to the ‘
15.3.1990 executed by defendants 1~a:”3d& 2
defendant. Incidentally, said notice is not’~re;i£ied and
is acknowledgement to sfi<)'\)s.f…."t.Y..1£it it is ~32"d v 9'
defendant Narayanaswamy on___ .IVnterestingly,
everything starts happening day i.e., when
plaintiff-iss1.ied._"not3;ce 1 and 2 on 22.3.1990.
1=-9% defendant '..xVrh'e':'i:-*._fie_ri1:riiiir1g' marriage of her daughter on
23.3..i.990"',__' takes 'to seek advancement of
os,,m%§.'1e5/1.9Sa.._fi-em i9.4.1.99o to 23.3.1990. On the same
.fiies'«-written statement in the said suit stating that
entered into agreement with plaintiff on
27.13.1989-,for sale of suit; schedule property for valuable
consideration of Rs.6,()O0/~ and she has put him in
9' possrassion of suit property aiong with her son. On the same
''''''i
-29-
Clay, she also lodges a complaint before Tahsildar, wherein
she reiterates the so called agreement of sale entered into
between herself and plaintiff and prays that her
should be removed from revenue register in respect.-*,j”::)xf_.f’s.L’1’it
schedule property as kathedar and to register ~
favour of plaintiff as he has been put .i_1_’1 poslsessioin l’ofV”s.1.1i.tV
schedule property way back on 27.:3i1Q89;V
24.3.1990 she prepares a privat-ex cornplaint
200 Cr.P.C. to be filed ‘–A(3:lv:tiefvvvf?Judicia1
Magistrate, Kolar. again::3t_A ‘?’;*’-‘=’*__ defendant, 31″}
defendant and persons.»V–w:ho. and scribe to
agreement of 3rd defendant
alleging’ that “eo_:l’1uc’ie’d together and created false
and fictitieus of 3′” defendant. Though
saipdrdoeunaent ‘iSVV:}v)I’€p:aI’@(l on 24.3.1990 itself, she changes
it;s_.Vlt§at’e:p.ag”-_3(),3.’l99O and subsequently changes it to
that private complaint. The result of said
private.-__’eom:plaint is not placed on the records of this Court
thisscourt is not aware about that. In the meanwhile 3″‘
” ‘edefendarit who has filed OS.No.l05/1989 withdraws the
Rat]
-21-
same on the ground that in the light of suit schedule
property being registered in his favour under sale deed dated
15.3.1990 suit does not survive.
17. In the background of these two sets _
represented by plaintiff and 3rd defendant,_.me
questions of law frajned in thislappeal} w”jll.:4.hav’e’~
analysed. In OS.No.239/199(}*filed 15y._;5laintiff”den ,}t’4.:[;9é)o
trial Court after recording etiidetice has
proceeded to accept’ Tithe a;\drerItner;tsdiA’~-nlade plaintiff
regarding dates and events ‘in th_e tifandsaction between
plaintiff and defendants 1.; have taken place
ignoring the eikeptsuwhi’cth'”hauef taken in chronological order
with reference to’*r.iates and events so far as it pertains to 3″‘
defendant and has”come to a conclusion that agreement of
between plaintiff and defendants 1. and 2
has.-:*’co1ne into place on 27.3.1989, during the
snbsist_ence}’of E)x..l?’1 transaction between defendants 1, 2
and come into place culminating in execution of sale
(lead of suit schedule property in favour of 3″‘ defendant.
,V___’i%’I”1erefore, the sale deed. which is executed by
W
-22..
defendants 1 and 2 in favour of 3rd defendant is not valid.
and binding, plaintiff having entered into agreement vide
Ex..IP1 and having taken possession of suit schedule property
under Ex.P1 is entitled to get saie deed of suit«~~.s.eh:e’dé’i1e”
property executed in his favour not only by de.fend.ant{s’i.1l’ano*
2 and aiso by 3*” defendant.
18. Whereas ’15’ appellate court’.he.’sV_ the
In a difference perspectlvei”by fran1p11gj it for it
consideration as referred. to abo’v’e. “a–ns’werecl them.-ivn favour
of 3″‘ defendant, which is ei1a”i}._ei1ged”ienthis appeal and in
respect of which’aforesaidtsugjbstfitiai Vqtievstions of law are
framed. . , a — .
is’). C_<)ming«.to'i'1%f*–st.;bstantia1 question of law, it
revolves aroundVre.§ee~tihg"»iV1%2x.P1, agreement of sale dated
as not 'b.E.€'.'71 proved and established by plaintifl"
'beyend»_aH reasonable doubt that it has come into existence
axis? also finding of courts below that burden of
estaxbiisiiinhgfi said document is on plaintiff, is held to be
V' .. e()'rreet for the following reasons.
W1.
-23..
20. As could be seen from dates and events of
incidents referred to above,f£x.P1 is alleged to have come into
existence on 27.3.1989. Plamtiff has not establisiieriV:”oe:foi’e’
this Court what was the value of suit schec1uie~,”:firQper’.€v”les”1 ”
on that date. it is said that he entered into it
purchase of 1 acre E6 guntasd-¢of:’_’_’
consideration of 3.6.000/~. Int.h’e,saidAagreementciause is * V
included to say that though consideration was
paid at the time of eiaieiriiig.iii;0f.:..a;§fe–¢:;i,}§:i: sale deed could
not be executed,’ifo r tligireaféonv Act that
is in force. suit schedule
properhi _ Ijf”1V’\§§vAI)port of execution of this
agreexnent plaintiff 3 witnesses. Among them
PW.3- iiisliddaiah Shetty in his evidence
it eai.e§oriCa3E3I..&states””that he never mentioned at the time of
entering ‘agreement that Fragmentation Act would come
in i’of’registratioI1 of suit schedule property in favour
of plaintiff. It is further seen that plaintiff while issuing
on 22.3.1990 has stated for the first time that 15 days
prior to issue of said notice he has come to know that
“*1
-24-
Fragmentation Act wouid not come in the way of execution of
sale deed. in his favour. However, he has not piaced
anything on record to show that in the first iristancei
was in force restricting execution and registrationisicf ‘sale
deed of suit schedule property in favour
and said Fragmentation Act was subsequentiy r;;:pAealed.n
entire averment of plaintiff to he it
is with an intention to §3eii’evei_:that_Ex.Pi ivsgenuine. It
is also to be noted also a Stamp
Vendor has stai’:e(1.._in inairitained a
register, in favour of
purchasers ‘incidentally, in this case 3*”
ciefendant’–at of his written statement had
taken a is a concocted document,
has coriie” into place subsequent to the sale deed in his
,Af8t’ef,().i/iI’\\p.., such kind of serious allegations regarding
geii.nine1ie_ss ()V:fC{0CU.IIi€IIt, it is expected of piaintiff not only
to “prod.ucev”said document, it is incumbent upon him to
h esiablisiiffthat the stamp paper on which said document is
”-created was purchased on the date mentioned therein i.e.,
W
/
4′:
h answered in affirmative.
– 25 –
on 27.3.1989. Though the scribe PW.3 states that he
maintained register, steps are not taken to produce said
register in the court to denionstrate that Ex.P1 has actiially
_ come into existence on 27.3. 1989 itseif with refereyI.1.(:_t”:_&»l;'<:3'f.'sale"
of stamp paper on which said agreement
lnspite of there being specific aéniaz.
regarding existence of EXP: on ‘and”tb.er.e
specific allegation that it is ‘c_on-“ii . avp_o’ellate'”‘–co’urt’ has rightly come to the
conclusiori4_tnatE2£;Pl a concocted document. The
concltision at IS’ appellate court is also based on
the above siiirnises and conjectures appears to be just and
prop_er”r1ot call for interference by this Court in this
second Therefore, IS’ substantial question of law is
Ltjk/1′
..2fi…
21. Now coming to second substantial question of law,
which is regarding e.xecu.tion of sale deed at Ex.D6 which is
said to have come into place after 3″} defendant hadgclear
notice of Ex.P1, again we have to refer to the eventsl:’w..lLii.cl2..
are referred to in earlier paragraphs in 1 V’
with reference to the dates. As could’ be seen from records,
3″-1 defendant had filed suit for Zlspeeiiiel
OS.No.105/1989 on 1.8.1989.__V”‘-m theflsaid _suit,’§g,’urnrnions = ”
was duly served on (ief§~3r1dar1tVs_._f:l.:A’~@d_ 2. lhllnf. suit
even before filing of 1 and 2
came forward to settle who is
plaintiff in Wiheijeftrvlliléit”défendam agreed to
executea attorney in favour of her son
2nd defendant to (l.3:lT::f’§’rvldefendant, to get sale deed of suit
scl1eii.1ule~ property in his favour from 21*” defendant, which he
.vvo_uld heA.executing not only on his behalf but also on behalf
Of his defendant. It is seen that with the help of
said regilstered power of attorney 21*’? defendant executed sale
H deed infavour of 3?” defendant on 15.3.1990. it is also seen
l on 15.3.1990 though 131 defendant has
W:
-27..
executed power of attorney in favour of her son to execute
the registered sale deed, she has also executed sale deed by
affixing her thumb impression. However, on 16.3.1.99O«<.4fth.e
said sale deed is presented by her son and the »
registered on the strength of registered power" .attor'neyv
that was executed by 181 defendar1t:_"'a.n'dfsuitV"'scihee:1u'iej
property got conveyed in favr__)_ur M, tiefejndanti on
16.3.1990. As on 16.3.1990 sagn;tp¢s;NGift:os/raga was
posted to 19.4.1990 ii1i:ng§;:'~.writter1 statement by
defendants '1 and__2. It seer: to execution
and registraticih 3"' defendant 15*-
defendant V. i*ro1:i”‘»§19;4.:990 to 23.3.1990
and her on that date. it is for the first
time that éffeentention that she has already
soidtsuit sch’ed._uie property in favour of plaintiff on
.b:”A’i’hvis submission. of hat defendant will have to be
an’ai_ysed:’wivthtreferenee to Ex.B7 which is a reply sent by her
to 3?” defendant to a notice issued by 3’4 defendant calling
upora her to execute sale deed of suit scheduie property in
favour pursuant to Ex.D5 which was executed by her
‘*1
-28-
and her son on 25.5.1989. in the said reply on 19.7.1989,
she had taken a specific contention that she is absolute
owner of suit schedule property and she has not en.tei*ed’ir1t,o” ..
agreement of sale with anybody, much less 3*?-..defe11dar1t,–..’9
who had caiied upon her to exec1.1te.’saie”deed, If? is”.
read with reference to written state-trictit fileci; here ‘Ont’
23.3.1990 it is obvious that 13*’-…defer1dar1t.isaajhpathoioéical 1′
iier. As she was makihgya fa.1se”st_a;terit’.eht irii’1er~”r:epiy dt.
19.7.1989 wherein she agreement with
3″? defendant .i;orv.._sai-at property and
categorically” suit schedule
property the first time on
23.3.l990to execution of sale deed in
favour of idefei1darit’* taken a pica that she has
entefied into agreeriientiuzith plaintiff for sale of suit schedule
repeated the same in her complaint dated
9′”2_37′;9.”‘;’_s__p Tahsiidar. She has aiso repeated the
ir:_’her”‘private complaint which was initialiy drafted on
24..3.19’9(¢), subsequentiy fiied into court on 2.4.1990. By
“AAlVookir1g into all these things, it is clearly seen that 3″‘
W
-29-
defendant when he purchased suit schedule property right
from 25.5. 1989 to 15.53.1990 Ie., the date when suit schedule
property was executed in his favour vide Ex.I)6 he was not
aware of alleged sale transaction between plaintiff’ and
defendants 1 and 2. It was not brought to V.
anybody i.e., either plaintiff or (1.efen(1a.nts”‘«’._f1 M
‘1L’herefore, as on 15.3..199() 3?” de’fenCi’ant ‘was “t;non’af1de’*;
purchaser of suit schedule ‘~
consideration from defendants and 2. V. ‘ITherefovre.”«Saie deed ”
vide Ex.D6 dated 1.5.3.3990 is-~not*.a”dAocurne1f:vt.. which was
exeenteti. in his favour when gnritiee to him with
reference to alle;-:_.{ed__ agreement 27.3.1989 said
to have beerii.e§u(ee’t.i,t.e(l. 4by:.'(i–ei’ei1dants 1 and 2 in favour of
plaintiff. Cotirt answer hoth suhstantiai
q’11esi.ti0nS of law,i&1’1 favolir of 3*” defendant and while doing
. so ofjserve that there is clear attempt on the part of
2 with connivance of plaintiff in creating
Ex.i°1 with intention to deny legitimate transaction which
was entered. into between 3″‘ defendant and defendants 1
K_;1.r1;c:72 on 25.5.1989 Vide Ex.D5 which cnllninated in sale
M
– 39 –
deed dated 15.3.1990 vide ECx..D6 and which was registered
in the office of Sub-Registrar on 16.3.1990 and pursuant, to
which 31″” ciefenclarlt is in po-s:~3essi<)n and enjoyrnent of suit
schedule property.
22. In the result, the judgment and (iee_:1’Hee”‘ .
17.9.2003 in RA.N0.75/199.1 1’ev(~3rsi;;g the: 3;:1ci,,” a
decree dated 22.7.1991. in ‘..eV0n’firV§ne(},;Ve_A«
consequently the second ap1)e2§.[-filed Vby ‘}V5§3.i{1tiff” i_S.1f_té5jec:§teci
with exemplary costs of 15,000 /;4L’pe:.yz1191e ciefefgdaxnt.