Karnataka High Court
K Sunil Kumar vs Smt Sharadamma on 15 September, 2017
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
R.F.A. No.438/2013
BETWEEN:
K. SUNIL KUMAR
S/O. KALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.77, GRAMADEVATHA STREET,
LALBAGH UPPARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 004. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI: K.G. LAKSHMIPATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O. JANARDHANA,
HINDU, AGED 59 YEARS,
R/AT ABBIGERE,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 090.
2. CHANDRIKA
W/O. THANUJ KUMAR
D/O. KALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.1057, III MAIN,
M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
3. LATHA .K
W/O. MALLESH,
D/O. KALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
NO.77, GRAMADEVATHA STREET,
LALBAGH UPPARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
- 2 -
4. RAGHAVENDRA .K
S/O. KALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
NO.77, GRAMADEVATHA STREET,
LALBAGH UPPARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
5. KALLAPPA
S/O. LATE MUNIRANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.77, GRAMADEVATHA STREET,
LALBAGH UPPARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
6. MURTHAPPA L.P.
S/O. PUTTALAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ABBIGERE
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 090.
7. SHESHAGIRI
S/O. CHENNAKESHAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ABBIGERE
CHHIKKABANAVARA POST,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 090. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: N. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI OMKARESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7;
R-2 TO R-6 ARE SERVED)
*****
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2012 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.5035/2004 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT
FILED FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.,
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
- 3 -
JUDGMENT
This regular first appeal is preferred by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.5035/2004, assailing judgment and decree passed therein on 09/10/2012, by the V Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore City.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the trial Court.
3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21/02/1984, executed in her favour by defendant No.4 and for registration of a regular sale deed in her favour as well as for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property consists of two sites bearing Nos.1 and 2 in Sy.No.3 of Abbigere Village, Yeshwantpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring east to west 66 feet and north to south 33 feet. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.4/Respondent No.7 herein is the absolute
- 4 -
owner of Sy.No.3, measuring 4 acres 25 guntas of Abbigere Village, Yeshwantpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, having got the said property registered under Section 6-A of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 along with other lands in case No.INA/1039/80-81, on the file of the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.
4. That defendant No.4 formed a layout adjoining to the land acquired for the expansion of Abbighere Village. Out of those sites, he agreed to sell site Nos.1 and 2 for Rs.500/- in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, an agreement of sale was executed by him on 21/02/1984, in favour of the plaintiff on receiving an advance sale consideration of Rs.300/- and plaintiff was put in possession of the suit sites pursuant to the said agreement. That defendant No.4 agreed to register the sale deed in the name of plaintiff whenever the plaintiff calls upon him to execute, after the lifting of ban to register under the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966. Plaintiff has averred that she is in continuous possession
- 5 -
of the schedule sites. It is the further case of plaintiff that defendant No.4 also executed a general power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff to manage the schedule property. Plaintiff constructed a house on the schedule sites and is residing with her family members since the year 1984. Government has also provided electricity connection to the house under Bhagyajyothi Scheme and later has provided regular connection. Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract so as to pay the balance of sale consideration to get the sale deed registered in her name. That defendant No.4 although promised the plaintiff that he would register the sale deed in her favour, but went on postponing execution of the sale deed in furtherance of the agreement itself.
5. That defendant No.1 filed a caveat petition before the trial Court, a copy of which was sent to the plaintiff and her son. From the caveat petition, she learnt that defendant No.1 had purchased the suit schedule property under a sale deed dated 19/05/2004. That defendant No.1 claims to be in possession of the
- 6 -
same, but defendant No.1 has never been in possession of the suit sites. Plaintiff immediately approached defendant No.4 regarding his conduct. Defendant No.4 stated that he had not executed any document in favour of any person much less defendant No.1. According to plaintiff, even otherwise, defendant No.4 was not competent to execute the sale deed in favour of defendants. That the defendants were aware of the agreement in favour of plaintiff and also the fact that plaintiff was in possession of the suit sites. That defendant No.1 is not a bona fide purchaser of the suit property for a valuable consideration. That plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell against defendant No.4 as well as other defendants as she is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
6. According to the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not residing in the village at any point of time. They have never been in possession of the schedule sites. That defendant No.3 is their henchman, who is a powerful person in the locality and he has colluded with
- 7 -
defendant Nos.1 and 2 in creation of the alleged sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. That defendants are trying to interfere with plaintiff's possession of the suit schedule property. In fact, they did so in the first week of July 2004. The plaintiff being a helpless lady, is finding it difficult to resist their attempt to interfere with suit schedule property. Therefore, plaintiff approached this Court seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement and for a decree of permanent injunction.
7. In response to the suit summons and Court notices, defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of parties as plaintiff has arrayed defendant No.3 as a party although he is in no way concerned with the transaction. While denying the plaint averments, defendant No.1 contended that defendant No.4 sold site No.2 to defendant No.2 on 28/04/1984 by executing a general power of attorney, agreement to sell and also an affidavit before the
- 8 -
Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, by receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,500/- on 27-28/04/1984. He delivered vacant possession of the suit site No.2 to defendant No.2. Since then, defendant No.2 is in actual and physical possession of site No.2 till 09/04/2004 and thereafter, defendant No.1 has been in possession of site No.2. That defendant No.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on the strength of general power of attorney executed by defendant No.4 in her favour and put defendant No.1 in possession of site No.2 of the suit schedule site on 19/05/2004 and since then, defendant No.1 is in possession of suit site No.2. That at no point of time, plaintiff has been in possession of site No.2 and the same is a vacant site.
8. It is further averred by defendant No.1 that plaintiff is none other than the sister of defendant No.4 and that the daughter of defendant No.4 is married to plaintiff's son and that they are close relatives which in fact has been suppressed by plaintiff in the plaint. It is further averred by defendant No.1 that plaintiff and
- 9 -
defendant No.4 were aware that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of site No.2 and they are also aware of the documents executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.2, but defendant No.4 has colluded with plaintiff and her sons and concocted the suit documents referred to in the suit so as to knock off site No.2, which is illegal. That defendant No.1 reserves right to prosecute defendant No.4 and plaintiff for fabrication and concoction of document before a competent Court. That defendant No.4 and plaintiff have taken advantage of the situation and tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of site No.2 by defendant No.1 in June 2004 and therefore, defendant No.1 filed a complaint with the jurisdictional police against defendant No.4 on 25/06/2004 and thereafter filed a caveat petition on 05/07/2004. That on 18/07/2004, plaintiff, her sons and defendant No.4 tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of site No.2 by defendant No.1. Once again a police complaint was lodged for protection and the police issued an endorsement dated 20/07/2004 to approach the Civil
- 10 -
Court and having no other alternative, defendant No.1 filed O.S.No.5676/2004 against the plaintiff, her sons and defendant No.4 for the relief of permanent injunction. That the said suit was pending adjudication then. It is further contended by defendant No.1 that plaintiff and her brother, defendant No.4 have colluded and hatched an evil plan to knock off the property of defendant No.1, which is illegal. That plaintiff is not in possession of suit site No.2 at all and the same is in possession of defendant No.1. He has further contended that suit is hopelessly barred by law of limitation and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. Defendant No.2 has adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1.
10. Defendant No.4 though appeared, did not file any written statement, but supported the case of plaintiff.
11. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issue for its consideration:
- 11 -
"1. Does the plaintiff prove that the fourth defendant agreed to sell the suit property to her for consideration of Rs.500/- by executing an agreement of sale on 21/02/1984?
2. Does the plaintiff prove that the fourth defendant transferred possession of schedule property to her in pursuance of agreement and after receiving Rs.300/- towards part of sale consideration?
3. Does the plaintiff prove that she was and is always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract?
4. Does the plaintiff prove interference caused by the defendants in his possession?
5. Does the first defendant prove that he is a bona fide purchaser of site No.2 of plaint schedule property, from the second defendant, for value without notice of prior contract between the fourth defendant and the plaint?
6. Is the plaintiff entitled for reliefs as prayed for by her?
7. What order and decree?
- 12 -
Additional Issue:
1. Whether the suit is barred by time?"
12. In support of her case, plaintiff examined herself as PW.1, whereas, PW.2 is the witness to the agreement at Ex.P-1. Defendant No.1 has been examined as DW.1 and defendant No.4 was examined as DW.2. Plaintiff produced sixteen documents, which are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-16. Defendants produced seventeen documents, which are marked as Exs.D-1 to D-17. On the basis of the said evidence, trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 4 and 6 in the affirmative and issue No.5 and additional issue in the negative and decreed plaintiff's suit by granting the decree of specific performance against defendant No.4 by directing execution of the sale deed in respect of the suit property, in favour of, plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.200/-, within three months from the date of decree, failing which, the plaintiff was at liberty to seek execution of the decree in accordance with law. It is further ordered that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful
- 13 -
possession and enjoyment of the suit property by granting a decree of perpetual injunction.
13. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 09/10/2012, defendant No.1 has preferred this regular first appeal and the same was admitted on 25/04/2013 and there has been an interim stay of the impugned judgment and decree which continued from time to time till 26/11/2014. Respondent No.1/plaintiff in the suit has filed I.A.1/14 seeking vacating of the interim stay.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.7. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are served and unrepresented. I have perused the material on record as well as the original record.
15. Appellant's counsel contended that the trial court was not right in decreeing the suit by granting the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell. He mainly focused on two aspects of the case. Firstly,
- 14 -
he submitted that the agreement to sell is dated 21/02/1984, but the suit was filed on 14/07/2004, nearly twenty years after the date of the agreement. He contended that the suit ought to have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Secondly, the appellant herein is a bona fide purchaser for value and under section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ['Act', for the sake of brevity] he is entitled to be protected and that no relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell could have been granted jeopardizing his rights. He further submitted that the plaintiff and Defendant No.4, sister and brother have colluded to create or concoct the suit agreement in order to defeat the right, title and interest of Defendant No.1-appellant herein; that the trial court ought to have appreciated these aspects of the case and ought to have refused to decree the suit. Learned counsel submitted, having regard to the aforesaid aspects, the Judgment and decree of the trial Court may be set aside by allowing the appeal.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff drew my attention to the issues raised in
- 15 -
the suit and submitted that issue Nos.1 to 4 have been answered in favour of the plaintiff. Further, additional issue has also been negatived by the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court was convinced of the fact that the plaintiff had proved that the Defendant No.4 had agreed to sell the suit property to her for a consideration and that he had transferred possession of the said property to her after receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.300/-; that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that the suit was filed on account of Defendant No.4 alienating site No.2 to Defendant No.1-appellant herein. He submitted that the trial Court has held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the alienation made by Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.1-appellant herein was on 09/05/2004 and the suit was filed on 14/07/2004 which is well within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Drawing my attention to issue No.5 which has been answered in the negative by the trial Court, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the
- 16 -
Defendant No.1-appellant herein not being a bona fide purchaser for value, is not entitled to protection under section 19[c] of the Act. He contended that there is no merit in the appeal and the same may be dismissed.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following points would arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether the trial Court was right in decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff and thereby granting the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 21/02/1984?
(ii) Whether the trial Court was right in granting the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 4 from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
(iii) What order?
18. It is noted that respondent No.1-plaintiff is sister of respondent No.7-Defendant No.4 in the suit. Defendant No.4 has not denied execution of the
- 17 -
agreement to sell the suit schedule sites to the plaintiff on 21/02/1984 for a sum of Rs.500/- and that a sum of Rs.300/- had been received by way of advance sale consideration and that sum of Rs.200/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.
19. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule sites and that she has put up construction on one of the sites. The controversy, however, arose with regard to Defendant No.4 executing in favour of Defendant No.1, an agreement to sell on 10/07/1984 and also general power of attorney, on the basis of which, Defendant No.2, being the mother of Defendant No.1, executed sale deed in favour of Defendant No.1 on 09/05/2004. It is when the said sale deed was executed and registered that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21/02/1984. Defendant No.4 has, however, denied executing any agreement in favour of Defendant No.1 on 10/07/1984 nor that any general power of attorney had been executed. Therefore, at this stage, it is discerned that
- 18 -
Defendant No.4 has supported the case of the plaintiff in so far as the relief of specific performance sought by respondent-plaintiff is concerned. But, at the same time, it is the case of Defendant No.1-appellant herein that the Defendant No.4 had executed agreement to sell and the general power of attorney on 10/07/1984 in favour of Defendant No.2 who in turn sold site No.2 to the Defendant No.1. Be that as it may. While considering the points for consideration. The question that would arise for consideration is as to whether the appellant prior to purchase of site No.2 made necessary enquiries with regard to right, title and interest of Defendant No.2 to alienate the said site on behalf of Defendant No.4 so as to come within the expression 'bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice' as stated in section 19[c] of the Act read with section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In this regard, evidence of the parties could be considered.
20. Sharadamma, as PW-1 deposed that Site Nos. 1 and 2 is carved out of Sy. No.3 measuring totally 4 acres 25 guntas, situated in Abbigere village,
- 19 -
Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore North Taluk. The said land was granted to her brother, Sheshagiri (Defendant No.4), by the Land Tribunal vide Order dated 26/11/1981 and the revenue documents are standing in his name. She has further stated that, the Defendant No.4 has carved out 24 sites in the aforesaid Survey Number and she agreed to purchase Site Nos.1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs.500/-. Thereafter, she paid an advance amount of Rs.300/- for which Srinivasamurthy and Chowdappa are witnesses to the agreement and since then, she is in possession of the suit schedule properties, since 1984. But, at that time, there was a prohibition on fragmentation of lands, due to which the sale deed was not executed. She has obtained electricity connection under Bhagyajyothi Scheme of the State Government.
21. That she received a Caveat from Defendant No.1, wherein it was stated that on 19/05/2004, Defendant No.4 had executed a Sale Deed in favor of Defendant No.1 to 3 and that they have been in possession of the suit schedule properties. Upon
- 20 -
enquiry, her brother (Defendant No.4) told her that he has not executed any document muchless Sale deed dated 19/05/2004, and that the documents are fabricated and concocted. That she knew Defendant No.3, but they did not have a good relationship. That Defendant No.1 and 2 were aware of the fact that she has been in possession of the suit schedule properties along with her children and that Defendant no.1 and 2 tried to dispossess her from the suit schedule properties, with the help of police. Therefore, she filed the suit seeking relief of specific performance and permanent injunction.
22. In her cross-examination, she has stated that Sheshagiri (Defendant No.4) is the elder brother of Sharadamma and that he has got his daughter married to Sharadamma's son. Further, Sheshagiri executed a Sale Agreement and within six months from the date of agreement, he also executed a GPA in her favour. Both Srinivasamurthy and Chowdappa have signed as witnesses to both the documents. Sharadamma being illiterate could not recognize the signatures on the
- 21 -
Agreement. Sharadamma, asked her brother- Sheshagiri, to execute the Sale Deed, but, he could not execute, as there was a prohibition on fragmentation of land. That she has been in possession of the suit schedule properties and the Defendants have never been in possession of the suit schedule properties.
23. Srinivasamurthy deposed as PW-2, since he was a witness to the Sale Agreement and the GPA. He has stated that he knows both Plaintiff and Defendant No.4, and that a sum Rs.300/- was paid towards the sale consideration at the time of agreement and Sharadamma has been in possession of the said sites from that day. However, the Defendants have never been in possession of the suit schedule properties. He has also stated that he would recognize his signature on the documents.
24. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted that he has put his signatures on the Sale Agreement as well as the GPA, which were executed by the Defendant No.4 in favor of Plaintiff. He has also stated that the
- 22 -
Defendants are outsiders and are not in possession of the suit schedule properties.
25. Defendant No.1 Sunil Kumar has deposed as DW-1 and has stated that Defendant No.4 is the absolute owner of site No.2, which was carved out of Sy.No.3. Defendant No.4 sold the suit schedule property to his mother, Girijamma through a registered Deed of Sale dated 28/04/1984 by executing a GPA and also an affidavit sworn to before the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore. Defendant No.4 received the entire sale consideration of Rs.1500/- and delivered vacant possession of the suit schedule properties on the same day. Prior to the sale, Defendant No.4 executed a sale agreement on 02/08/1982 and since then, Defendant No.2 was in actual possession. On 19/05/2004, he got possession and since then, he has been in possession of the suit schedule properties, as Defendant No.2 executed a registered Sale Deed in favor of Defendant No.1 on the strength of Power of Attorney executed by Defendant No.4 in favor of Defendant No.2. As the Plaintiff and Defendant No.4 are
- 23 -
sister and brother, they are trying to knock off the property on the strength of false and concocted documents. That Plaintiff and Defendant No.4 tried to interfere with peaceful possession and thereafter, DW.1 filed a police complaint on 25/06/2004 and thereafter, lodged a caveat upon which the Plaintiff has filed the false case. He has also stated that the Plaintiff has not constructed any house in the Site No.2, but it was constructed in Site No.1.
26. In his cross-examination DW.1 has deposed that Girijamma, being the mother of DW-1 executed a sale deed in his favour and the property does not stand in her name. Document of Assessment No.325 does not stand in the name of Girijamma, but, it stands in the name of Sheshagiri in Panchayath Records. It is admitted that except GPA, no other document has been produced to show that Girijamma had been in possession of the said property. Further, it has also been elicited that Sharadamma has been in possession of the Site no.2 along with her children. That Sheshagiri is not related to the mother of Defendant No.1, and except the
- 24 -
transaction regarding the site, there is no other transaction.
27. DW.1 has also stated that a suit in O.S.No.5676/2004 was filed against the Plaintiff and the said suit has been dismissed for non payment of the stamp duty.
28. Defendant No.4, Sheshagiri has deposed as DW.2 and stated that Plaintiff is his sister and he is the owner of Sy.No.3 and has formed 24 sites in the said property. DW.2 has admitted to have executed a Sale Agreement in favour of his sister for a sum of Rs.500/- in respect of the suit schedule properties and also to have handed over possession of the suit sites to her. Further, he has admitted to have executed a GPA in favor of his sister in order to look after the sites.
29. DW.2 has stated that he has been suffering from TB and the Plaintiff was always ready to execute the Sale deed, but due to ill health, the execution could not take place. He has deposed that he does know who
- 25 -
Defendant No.1 and 2 are. That he is willing to execute the sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff, who is his sister.
30. DW.2 has stated in his cross-examination that he has formed 24 sites in Sy.No.3 and admitted to have executed a Sale agreement and also a GPA in favor of his sister, who is the Plaintiff. DW.2 has further admitted his signatures on the document at Ex.P-1(B) and Ex.P-2(B). Plaintiff has constructed her house in the middle of Site No.1 and 2 and has also raised a garden in and around. Plaintiff has been in possession of the same since 1984. PW-1 has been asking DW-4 to execute the Sale Deed in her favor, but, DW-4 has been postponing it due to ill health.
31. That there was no hindrance to execute the sale deed, but, at that time there was Prevention of Fragmentation Act, which banned registration for two months. Further, it is stated that the signatures on Ex.D-1, Ex.D-8 does not belong to DW.2. DW.2 has stated that, Plaintiff has constructed her house leaving 15 feet space to the west of her house and has also
- 26 -
constructed a shed in Site No.2. DW.2 has also admitted that the Plaintiff has demanded execution of sale deed.
32. On perusal of the signature of Defendant No.4 on Exs.D-1, D-2, D-2[a] and D-3 with that of Ex.P- 1, it is noted that the said signatures are not identical though the documents are contemporaneous. In fact, the signatures found on Exs.D-1 and D-2 on each of those pages do not themselves tally with each other. In the circumstances, the trial Court has held that Exs.D-1, D-2 and D-3 are documents on which no reliance could be placed and that they have been concocted with an ulterior motive. If Exs.D-1, D-2 and D-3 are not relied upon and held to be documents which have not been executed by Defendant No.4-owner of the suit schedule property in favour of Defendant No.1, then on the strength of those documents, Defendant No.4 could not have alienated the suit schedule property in favour of Defendant No.1, in which event, latter has not acquired any right, title and interest in the suit schedule site No.2. In the circumstances, the trial Court was justified
- 27 -
in answering issue Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.5 against Defendant No.1 and also holding that filing of the suit was not hit by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
33. In the circumstances, it is held that Defendant No.1 is not a bona fide purchaser for value and is not entitled to protection under section 19(c) of the Act. Section 19(c) reads as under:
"19. Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title.--Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, specific performance of a contract may be enforced against--
xxx
(c) any person claiming under a title which, though prior to the contract and known to the plaintiff, might have been displaced by the defendant;
x x x"
Therefore, the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit. The Defendant No.4 would now have to join Defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. In the event they do not come
- 28 -
forward to execute the sale deed, then the respondent-
plaintiff is at liberty to get the conveyance in accordance with law through the agency of the court.
34. It is further ordered and decreed that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by granting decree of perpetual injunction.
35. In the result, there being no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.
Parties to bear their respective costs. In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA No.1/2014 would not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*/AN