Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmidasappa W/O Shri Dasappa vs Smt Lingamma W/O Late Muthurayappa ... on 27 October, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
E
INTHEHKH{COURTOFKA%WH%KAATBNWMflDRE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 20 1Q___
PRESENT T
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE "
AND
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE '
REA NO.2510 TO}«"~20o6(REs1 '
RFA NO_,2518/42006 [DEC]
IN RFA NO.2510 OF 200'6.(R1':3'S)_ 1.
BEI WEEN:
Smt. Lakshmidasa.ppa;. _ V' "
W/o.shri;pasappa; = _ "
Aged ab0ut4_5 yea1'_s,AI_
R/0 No;2EA. st.Marks'Eng1ish School,
-" v .831 ].'JIé3:in }I<:saraghat.ta Cross,
T.Da"sar'é1ha._11iA,T_.
Bang:-1Or¢4T56Q'@.57 ....APPELLANT
Murthy, Advocate]
V' v. _ H aSmt.Lingamma,
'' 'W/0.Late Muthurayappa,
' Since deceased by LRS
lg" .
1(a) Dasappa, 2
S / o.Late Muthurayappa,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o.No.353, 8111 Main,
8"? Cross, I-Iesaraghatta Road,
T.Dasaraha}.1i.
BangaIore--560 057.
Nb) Shri.M.SreeniVas,
S / o.Late Muthurayappa,
Aged about 50 years,
He) Sri.Venkatesh Murthyf _
S/o.Late Muthurayappa, 0'
1[b) and 1[(:) are residing._a't._No.7/2,' 0 "
K.B.Temp1e Road, 0 ._
73" Cross, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 _ "*-..;;..,RE_SPONDENTS
(By Vakkund, Advocates)
filed' 1 of CPC against the
Judgment and de_cr'e,e'«..dated: 27.10.2006 passed in
O.S.N;()."5712/i'9h9BV On" the file of the XXIV Addl. City
:_.~'"~._Civi1:_:'Ju;dge.._ Bangalore City [CCH.No.6) decree-ing the
s'ui.t_for Canoeilation of documents.
1N'R;<*A Nt()'.'fii;'3A;i:8/2006 (DEC)
' v13EIwEI:i+:\;_:_;
"'tSvt1I3t5'.Ifl;;1kshmidasappa.
. ff.-W';-(o.Shri.Dasappa,
glad about 45 years.
" R/o No.2, St.Marks English School,
A«
801 Main, Hesaraghatta Cross,
T.Dasaraha1li,
(By Sri.S.V.Narayana Murthy, Advocate) L.
AND:
1. Smt.Lingamma, _
W/0. Late Muthurayappa} 2
Since deceased by LRs '
1(a) Dasappa, V ._ _
S / o.Late Mu'ihurayappa_,' ._ --.
Aged about 55"yea3~s,._ '" in
R/0,.NsV;35E§', 8th 'Mai41'1"~,{"_--.._ .
8*"-_.VCf§;?eS.'E'g, Hesa_ragh_atta Road,
_
Bang-:ilore~5«6G'vdC57;'V
lib) I
* S /0.Late, I\/Iuth_1;i'ayappa,
" __Aged about years,
{2} S'41;i.VAe111{ate'sh.Murthy
/0.LatQ...M*uthurayappa,
' V' " ~ J,(d3y V A ' eS1=j:V/'enkatesh,
= ' /of.-Late Muthurayappa,
'Aged about 41 years,
21 iejk Sri.Shivakumar,
' .-- S/0 Late Muthurayappa,
Aged about 53 years,
1{b) to He] are residing at No.7/2,
K.B.TeInp}e Road,
£5"
Bangalore-560 057 "
731 Cross, Rajajinagar,
Banga.Iore--56O 010. ...RESPOND4E1V¥fT_S'
(By Sri.M.B.Naragund & Sona Vakkund, Advc-e:a{e:S},i'L:'-i _
RFA filed U/o.41 Rule 1 R/w..Sec.96'ofagajnse 'AV'
the Judgment and decree dated::g_v28,'-1eQfiv2dOQ6..'paSse-d
O.S.No.908/1997 on the fi1¢,of thedX.Xg'-V Addi... Cify Cari:
Judge, Bangalore City {ccH;1$fbv;e6) dismisvsiflgdfidhed suit
for declaration and possession.--- '3
These Appeals reserved for
pronouncement * I ay, . MANO HAR,
J., deliveredddtddhéf
i_dh,:UfiGMENT
Ap1:§e11'ant_ié; No.1 in O.S.No.5712/1998
and,.._%:1'3Ivaintiff ui11..V:vQ.S:.No.9O8/2007 before the court
.Be.ing"~a_ggrieVed by the judgment and decree
fiiatgédd.' 27dllT1og2ooe made in o.s.No.5712/1997 and
'V'O.S.1§1o,QVQ8./4'.2OO7 by the 24th Additional City cm}
x V' Bangalore, preferred this regular first appeal.
AM,
2. The common question of law and fact is involved
in both the appeals and the subject matter of the suit
schedule property is one and the same. The
has conducted common trial. In view of .
appeals are clubbed together an_d.....disposed" d" if
common judgment.
3. The brief facts of the cas_e"are as
O.S.No.5'712/199.6 was....--fi£ed"--»..on .'I8«~.i8--1..EEJ96 by
Smt.Lingarnma W/or 'M _ seeking for
cancellatioiriea. sai_e""deed dated 28-5-1994
registered in Book No.1, Voi.1598
at page No.23-ii' 'too23A7. the Offiee of the sub-Registrar
"vRajaij.ihagar;'i-- Bangalore in favour of the first respondent
in respect of house property bearing No.53, No.6/38/B/O07/2, mm Corporation R""'«..VV'Divisiohv,...A1' 7% Cross, K.B.Temple Road, em Block, o.'Raja3'ii1agar, Bangalore, measuring 30 feet X 40 feet. &/ (
4. O.S.No.908/1997 was filed on 30-1-1997 by Smt.Lakshmidasappa against Smt.Lingainma seeking for declaration, declaring her as owner of property bearing No.58, Municipal No. 6/ 38/B /007 / fl Corporation Division, 7th Cross, K.B.Temple":'Ro.ati',:" V' Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, meas-11re--'_:3(:);,"
feet, and delivery of its possessior1«,fro_Ir'1 Linga1n,n1a"
to award Inesne profit at Rs, /---- per the it date of the suit till the date offiof the"po'ssession and for the cost of the 'V
5. The calsehofp --pia,int_ifiVVin O.S.No.5712/ 1996 is that the" site described in the plaint scheduileyp is'4.Vpti,rci'iase'd the Lingamma as per the sale deedl dated 16-2-1970 for a valuable CoflSjdle1'atiori;:'~SinCe then the plaintiff is the owner of it _ the l'"suit..i:p1'o'perty. Consequent to the registered sale dated 16-2-1970 katha was transferred in the .' of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is regularly paying 5"
7
tax to the Corporation. Originally, the said property belonged to one Muniyappa S / o. Mailaiah, he sold it in favour of :B.Kannaiah under a registered saie deed dated 7-8«~1961. Kannaiah in turn sold the said siteAV.yin4: fd§?'eg.irei N of M.Aswathnarayana Rao, under a registerediisalje».deieclfl dated 14~1 1-1961. The said Asv{*athnarayar1aii.:f{a,o the said site in favour of one M§P~Iai'asimhs,i.ah 'Naid'u under a registered sale deed 15--5--~.1 iiijhei said Narasiinhaiah Naidu' to one Smt.Gangubai as perihie deed dated 17~12--'1__969.iA sold the said property in favour the registered sale deed _ dated;gg1'ei;.2. merits; 1 T plaintiff contended that she is having 5 sons hands. daixgh*:.er';" First son is the second defendant in V . the The other four sons are staying with the 1' 1'1'~44':--.piaintiff'''"along with their families. The first son is
-1 separately, since about 25 years with his famiiy /5"
8
members. The plaintiff with the help of her other four sons made an application for sanctioning of plan to the Bangalore City Corporation and Bangalore "City Corporation L.P.No.60l/76-77 dated 20th sanctioned a plan. On the basis of th€.._S'-ifiicl a7 residential house was constructed her four sons and daughter werellifelsidingpthere. plaintiffs daughters marriage'-@'vas in the year 1990. The remg;j_ffi.ng 'a_r"el"'staying with her. Her first son i.e.,that seco'n'd defend'a.nt'l*--.i.;"s'ed to come to the house of'plaintiff<.on..special occasions and even plaintiff other"-other used to visit the house of the defendant and their relationship was cordial. son of the plaintiff i.e. second defendant jvwas to one Srnt.Hanurnakka and they had two lj_'sonS«...and one daughter by name Manjunath, Prakash ' Rajalakshrni, out of their wedlock. After the birth "of these three children, the second defendant married 5?
the first defendant and out of their wedlock, they h-aye a son called Dilipkurnar. The second defendant_"'tised?Vi.to3 take the help of the plaintiff whenever he is _ The plaintiff Lingamrna used to r.th_e her grand daughter Rajalakshmi andfshe use.;d:t'o the house of second defendairtlpfor to help his family. In the plaintiff had gone to attend g~;é'ooriflpgl..rlelivery of her granddaughter Vim-trse of the second defendarrpg the second defendant gave -plaintiff that he wanted to transfer' "j'..of:--4filralfshmidasappa i.e. the first deferidaiit in v.f'c'LVfC:)i111' of the plaintiff due to the love and affeotion«.an_d~-- the service done to him whenever he was defendants took the plaintiff to one vacfangtfiand showed to the plaintiff stating that the if sVaic1«..rsite belongs to Lakshmidasappa and he wanted to l transfer the said site in her favour. The plaintiff being an uneducated lady believed the words of defendants /5"
and asked whether she had to pay any money to them. The defendants gave an impression that transferring the site in the name of the if token of gratitude and she need .hot"pay"»any :rrron.ey7<toH"'. them. In those circumstanees, Vpiaintifffjhasn disclosed the said fact to otherutfotrr believed the words of and to the Office of the her thumb impression The plaintiff was not obtained from her by the offdthe suit property. The plaintiff the dark regarding transfer of the"'h_onse property made by her in the name the defendant, till the exparte order was passed in 1995 filed by the first defendant. The 'V p1airitiff"'Vwas.V under the impression that the site stood in ':f.thei---nanie of the first defendant was transferred in her ' for that she has signed before the Sub~Registrar if ytrherever the defendants directed. é«
8. The plaintiff contended that the defendanVtse'..::hiajve induced the plaintiff fraudulently making he_r§_:to" _ the false statement of them, to "= impression on the alleged sale g.:'"I;I'1€,f1 have fraudulently got transferred the in the name of the first The defendants have never disclosed the She is an illiterate and _she:~"has::';bVeiieV§§dV'- rvords of the defendants. ifldeedlupiurported to have been agoifidable and obtained by deserved to be cancelled.
The plaintiffhasieontendled that no consideration was ._Valso':;}aidV:t0__heri '"He~nc'e, the said sale deed is void.
9..--' the plaintiff further alleges that till Vf'~..«.4_"~_August @994, she was in the house of the defendants. of the ill~health of her daughter and she came to house for the treatment of her daughter and her % :2 daughter was admitted to the Varalakshmi Nursing Home, Bangalore for nearly 15 days. Taking advantage of the same, the first defendant has filed eviction petition before the City Civil Court No.2341/1994, against the plaintiff incorrect address and getting a has been served on the pla_i_ntiff order of eviction granting thre'e._Vinonthls--tirne to vacate. Thereafter, the first execution case No.e104/1995 executing thegevictioirfporder made in HRC i3lO.2e'§4l'1v.y?p}:.QA?34'vvith the help of Police. The plaintiff and ninenibers were vacated from the said' _premises;" plaintiff and her sons when came to avboutzthe eviction order passed by the Court they tlniadgrfaifapptilcation in Misc.Case.N0.533/1995 seeking
-V for the delivery warrant contending that no notice has been served to the plaintiff. The court below by its order dated 16-3-1996 was pleased to allow the Hl\/Iisc. petition and recalled the delivery warrant. Aw by the plaintiff. In View of that the plaintiff filed--.gthe above suit seeking for the cancellation of executed by her.
12. In pursuance to the_:n_otice'----i_ssued Judge, the first respondent"enteredfappearance and filed objections in the plaint. However ad1ni.tte:d plaintiff is the absolute No.58 and the same registered sale deed dated earnings in milk vending.
She has'i'ugrther'statedtthatffthe plaintiff is the absolute 0WI1"f:_§:Ip" 'of. the Her husband died in the year does not inherit any ancestral properties. attaining the majority left the plaintiff. .V Theufsecfondxvdefendant was helping the plaintiff. The ii.jpImn.tiffv"'has incurred huge debt for the purpose of oielebrating the marriage of her daughter. In order to lieluidate the debts, she has sold the said property in fie favour of the first defendant with the consent of herppall the children. However, the first defendant allegation of the plaintiff that the house K with the help of four sons.
question is self--aequired property,'-A_the :isl";th'e absolute owner and other had she has got all the right to to her choice. The the property has been forvgz'-palvaluable'heonsideration of Rs.l,90,'(')p_0V(€)/;x been paid to the p1ajntiffEat_ o'f:..se)«iee:1tion of the sale deed. In order to 'purchase schedule property, she has disppo_§se'dii.of her situated at Bagalgunte in favour of out of the said money, she had suit schedule property. She also V -V contended that the other sons of the plaintiff had lll..:pa1"ti-eippated in the negotiation, the plaintiff had W--'pr'omised to deliver possession on finding a suitable lfkaecommodation. However, the plaintiff did not kept up A' 16 her words and not Vacated the premises inspite of granting her time. 15 View of that she has filed eviction petition and got evicted. Subsequently, the eviction order was set aside by the court below and V. was put in possession of the property. defendant admits that the misconception and no fraud. has been playegclfiy on the plaintiff. She further""t'sta»tes thatlthe sallellldeed was Voluntarily and.»y.vvve-xtecuted by the plaintiff before the she has deniedfi then by the plaintiff that respondentgs 1 rnisrepresented in the guise of transferring"thesite belonging to the first defendant the plaintiff and they have taken the Sub~Registrar office, and the suit V --V propfertydoeionging to the plaintiff got transferred in the "'r.;nai:ieu of first respondent by the Registered sale deed. she has also sought for declaration declaring that she is the absolute owner of the house property /5"
37
bearing No.58 and put in possession of the said property as per the registered sale deed dated 28-5-1994 by filing O.S.No.908/1997.
13. The second defendant in o.s.No.5712/&s1..s'ael~in;{se« adopted the written statement filed defendant in all its material dismissal of the suit.
14. On the basis of' parties, the Civil Court'frai:n'e.d::i;i'1e"following'tvvo sets of issues:
Issue N H [_i)_ liwllethpeflr Atheplaintiff proves that she 1 exeeiited ____ the sale deed dated it V..p348=..5f1994 in favour of the defendant 1 under the Circumstances as in para 7 and 8 of the plaint?
pp p (ii)-._.':' 'Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 28-5-1994 is liable to be cancelled?
Xv
(iii) 18 What order or decree?
Issue in O.S.No.908/1997:
(i) {ii} Does the plaintiff proves that purchased the suit schedule from the defendant on 28-5» valuable Rs.1,90,000/--'?
consideration '1' If so, does thetdfuprther dhprpvepp request of the defe_rd:1'dant._pshe'permitted her to co1'1'_t4_'i'rf..ue fin}. .p'es_s.ession of the schedule property"after«._:e;}e<tu'ting the sa1_e.--dee_d as 5 of the " A Q prove that the LTM 'was on the impugned sale deed '--vir1______favour of the sale deed in relation to the suit property giving an uhd,erstanding that it is a sale deed in ."re1ation to plaintiffs property in her favour as contended in para 3 of the written statement?
/5"
E9
(iv) Is plaintiff entitled for the relief of possession and mesne profits?
(V) What decree or order?
15. The plaintiff in O.S.No.5712/1996 in ordierito prove her case examined herself as P.W.1 andi~«eXarn_i'n'ed her neighbour Ramanjanappa as P.W.2.. Ii.e1'.._tv§}o"f sons M.Venkatesh and M.Srinivas and her sor1--ir1--law was exar-nined".as marked 30 documents as behalf of the examined herself as D.W.1 and" e§(a11ii'njeidt"or:ie.Kandaswamy as D.W.2 and got I3.1arl(ed'4"th;e'doc1i"rnents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16. The '' 'coVrn'moE1i"e\}idence has been conducted in both the suits. below after Considering the oral and "i._docurrler1:tary evidence let in by the parties in both the held issue Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.NO.5712/1996 in affirmative and issue Nos.1, 2 and -4 in M 20 O.S.No.908/1997 in the negative and issue No.3 in the affirmative, consequently by its judgment and decree dated 27-10-1996 was pieased to decree the O.S.No.5712/1996 with costs and registered sale deed dated 28--5-- 1994 whieixtvfasi " ~ as Ex.D1 is null and void and stzit was dismissed with costs.
17. The appellant being jigdgment and decree made 1996 and iifiied' two 'appeals.
18. RFA'°=. p'No'.V25A1--?)s/'2i't)O6 is filed against .---..,O.S:l§fo.:5f71..2/19'96'"anVd RFA No.2518/2006 was No.908/ 1997.
Leafned counsel appearing for the appellant in g:."t)oth:'A.i.--'the appeals contended that the judgment and Hdeicree passed by the court below is contrary to law and J;
evidence on record. The court below misunderstood and misread the evidence on record. 'Ifh_e'».tei1tireV. approach made by the court below in the__rnatter~ in controversy and is erroneous law.
further contended that Lingarnrriad"pursuant' to registered sale deed the absolute owner of _ It for her to alienate her ab_solute.._._ she has incurred of her daughter, her property and she has gfirs:t..._respondentwappellant herein. Accordingiyg agreed to purchase the prope_§rty;A. A sale ideled has been executed at her free will. the court below is that the sale deed got regi's.tere'dAV"_"_'»by;"playing fraud, undue influence and
--V misrepresentation of the facts is totally incorrect and V' "Lfsought for setting aside the judgment and decree passed the court below by allowing the appeals declaring /5» 22 that the appellant is the absolute owner of the property in question.
20. On the other hand, Sri.ML§V.Naryagundh.f"
counsel appearing for the responvdeents cont¢nd.ed there is no irregularity or infirinity the and decree passed by the alsoicontended that the court shelow oral and documentary leérl came to the conclusion undue influence and also of the plaintiff, the alleged executed and no consideration heen shown in the sale deed and paid herein. Hence, the sale deed itself is for dismissal of the appeal.
have carefully gone through the arguments ' addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and the if and documentary evidence led by the parties. 5/~
22. It is the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.5712lf*'1f'3Ei'6'4 before the court below that as per the registered 1' deed dated 16-2-1970, she has pulrcliiaseld V in dispute. The katha was = pursuant to the registered sal'e:deed.Vh an application being Bang'alo:re City Corporation sanctioned for:VV.'co_n__sftmction of a residential 1 her four sons, she has celebrated the marriage flilelllglrear 1990. Her specific case is second defendant has not assisgtedher wh_eneve';r she was in difficulty. However, relationship between them is cordial. Whenever, the was in difficuity the piaintiff used to
--V go hisalhonse. The specific case of the plaintiff is that l:j..w1'ien she went to the first defendants house for the ' of her grand--daughter in the month of March .1994, the second defendant in the guise of transferring /£9', 24 a site belonging to the first defendant for the service done to the second defendant as a token of gratitude, took her to the Sub-Registrar office and signatureslfivere obtained on some documents. Subsequently,;"'she'_~ean1e to know that they have taken the signatuie Sale 'w deed selling the property belonged the first defendant. Sale dereldévvaslexectitedlyiliiinifavour of * the first defendant by p1aying""-fr_au_gd, undue influence and Inisrepresentationb she deposed that she has no other .l1ouse property in question sheis'jstaying__a1ong.'with her other four sons. She has intent' the house to the first defer;§da1*i.t. lxmeen, defendants 1 and 2 along came to her house to evict her then only, about the execution of the sale deed
-V in fa4vou"r:aof first defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 lljevicted her and her belongings and locked the house. ' Tliereafter, steps have been taken to recall the delivery £~* 25 Warrant and order made in HRC case and got redeiivery of the possession of the said house.
23. The plaintiff was (:ross--examined defendants. In the cross--exarr1ination, she__ha.s depo_se'd*r t that by playing fraud and by defendants got the sale deeds' e;Xecute_d"by huer shgis ; an illiterate lady doing milk and her husband died in the time of his death, her firstson 'tdefehipdant was aged about 217 work, she brought them up. However, played fraud on her by _ misrepreesentirigJflthat the site in the name of the first transferred to her name and got the tsaijeh---.Vtdeed'_"_v»--re§istered in respect of the property in
-V questioriinfavour of the first defendant. "In support of her contention, she has also '4 eicamined Rainanjanappa, who was resident of No.7, 6"
Au 26 block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. In his deposition he has stated that on 30-11-1995 the Court Ameen, first and second defendants came to the suit schedule property for vacating the plaintiff. When he asked first son of the plaintiff about this, Withou.t__;li12.:_\.r went away. He further deposed plaintiff Lingamma and hersons fo1'._1rrore than V ~' and except the said house, have house. Nothing contrary been Velieiteddin the cross-
examination. _ '
25. Ftirther son of the plaintiff was also exa1ninedlll'asllP.\}lf.3ll deposed that the first son of the the 'family share and left the house about and the remaining four brothers are with the plaintiff and constructed the *._house" 'after obtaining permission from the competent Vlatlthtarity. The plaintiff is an illiterate taking advantage her illiteracy, the second defendant got executed the z€~ sale deed in favour of the first defendant who is..__the second wife of the second defendant. He deposed that by filing necessary applications" "
redelivery of the possession.
26. Sri.M.Srinivas, another"'s:'on of iivas V examined as P.W.4. sifiiilgwjines as that of P.W.3. Son--inV¢i'a'w' was also examined as has taken place in contended that the question for liquidation of debts in the year' 'arise.
defendant Lakshrnidasappa, examined In her evidence she has denied the relationship between her and the second defendant. In he'1*...eVidence she deposed that the second defendant is theflhusband of her sister and the plaintiff approached Wher for purchase of the property and she agreed to éw 28 purchase the schedule property for Rs.l,90,000/-- and sale consideration has been paid to her. She further stated that the plaintiff on her own came to theV.S__ub-- Registrar Office and executed the sale deed on will and nobody has played fraud on her or misrepresenting. Hence, she y_ 'eyntitE.ed«._to*5be"1 declared as the owner of the ppropertyl on the'V_l:3)asis~ sale deed executed by the"'plaintiff."'._: 'cross- examination, she adr:r1itted_«'if her :_hu's.band's'i name as Dasappa. On the'-i.I'V_'name of her father--1in--laiy; _' she does not know the name of her father--'in- she also deposed that she has_n'otr_ma2rried"theft" second defendant. She further married him about 23 years back at at Srirampuram. At the time of her V . mari"iag'e,. she was residing at Bagalgunte. She was if if ' doing the business of stitching petticoat and by the said
-- she had purchased a site in Bagalgunte; for the "purpose of purchasing the present site, she sold the /$«« 29 said site to one Srinivasaraju. She has one son by name Dilip Kumar, he is aged about 23 second defendant is not related to her. examination, she could not say ;how_:she"« got purchase of the said property.
was also not examined to the site to him. In "she has examined one Kandasiirafny a practicing advocate that he has of Lingamma at that he knows the Notary Prakashddand he. the Bench of City Civil Cour%t'.'V In the c.ross--examination, he states that "I was given encurnbrance certificate, tax paid receipt and the se1f--acquirec1 property of Lingamma." On naqnestioning, he has deposed that while preparing deed Lakshmidasappa did not Show any ' docnnients for preparing the sale deed. Aw 30
28. On careful consideration of the evidence, it is clear that the sale deed was got executed by the defendants by playing fraud and misrepresentation of the true"-fact. Admittedly, the second defendant is the first V. plaintiff. He got separated from the family years back. The plaintiff with help' sons who were staying withriher cons'tructer_i.; .the"ho.1iseV'a and celebrated the marriagefflotfliher daugh.terfI: has come in the evidence the 'defendant has not helped the plaintiff whenV:f'she.vlw-abs or at the time rr1arria'ge.._p4"ofghterxiaughter. Since relationship between 'the parties' iwerecordial, the plaintiff frequently the hotzseivof the second defendant whenever he _Vi11..fVAdiff"ici;1--1ty. Since she was the absoiute owner of advantage of her illiteracy in the guise transferring the site belonging to the first iffdefei<idant in her favour, the defendants took her to the l Sigibeitegistrar Office and got the sale deed executed in if favour of the first defendant. In order to cheat the other Aw 3] brothers who are staying with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is aged about 75 years she has intended to the aforesaid property through a Will to one'-«l.t:5f by name Srinivas. The second defendant--,can1e"to kliovxfg about this Will, in order to lmock:To_ff"'t_he played a fraud on his four brothers and' got sale deed in favour of if f
29. p.w.2 h'ee: l'eieel:1§ lmentioned that on the date.V from the house, Ameen; came to the house. defendant denied her relationship' the second defendant. Whereas she thatjétlie second defendant is the husband of her not ready to admit the fact that the 'V seco'nd""V.defendant is her husband. The materials on record Velearly show that fraud has been played on the ' in order to make wrongful gain. That apart, the "first defendant filed HRC petition No.2341/1994 J! 32 treating the plaintiff and her sons as her tenants by furnishing the wrong address and endorsement on the postal share. for having served the notice on plaintiff and got an exparte order of eviction on 19--7--l,99--l5g' Ex.P.8 and I:3x.P.9 and got her evicted l..Said"f house with the help of the Policezit The jjplaintiff sons were on the street for months together'. The second defendant being the ofuthe has not protected his mother 'a_.n'd_gli_is On the other hand. the plaintiff f:iled:..:it/[isc,gC_alse_ Vgl1\io".533/1995 for decree as per Ex.P.2 dated l6--3--199l6t'_l_'andl" »'th'_e4redelivery of the schedule propertyi'~ as dated 27-3-1996. The defendants'«hav__e not stopped their fraudulent activities. ' chjallhenging the order made in Misc.Petitior1 '.VNo.533/ll.9hQl5 dated 16-3-1996 and the order dated V' lv~:lj?.fvi'--;3=--:.l9l96 made in Misc.Petition No.14}/1996 setting ' aside the ex--parte order and redelivering the possession of the property was questioned in HRRP No.533/ 1996 /5% 33 and I-IRRP No.534/ 1996 before this I-Ion'b1e Court. This Court was pleased to dismiss both the petitions. Hence, it is clear that it is a fraudulent action of the defendants to defraud the plaintiff and her sons. In fact. . caune to know about the frauduleyrit 1"' defendants 1 and 2 and iss-ued_"vlieglal._l 19-12-1994 as per Ex.P.17'b_u't.,no repiy hasVlb'e'e1i.gi§ren. = "
The evidence on record sho'w--s._ that the defendants got the sale'de'ed* the plaintiff in favour of the fraud, undue influence anditnisreprlevsenting the correct facts. Hence, the defendants a1*e"iiotie'1vititled for any relief. The court belovifl after corisidering the pleadings of the parties, appreci,ati.ng"~--the evidence on record came to the fraud has been played on the plaintiff andllaccordingly in order to protect the interest. decreed l..fjthe'suit"l filed by Lingamma and declared that the sale ' dleedwdated 28-5-1994 as per EX.D.1 is declared as null and void and consequently, the suit filed by the £9' 34 defendants seeking for declaration that the first defendant is the absolute owner of the said property on the basis of Ex.D.1 has been dismissed. We finclrthat there is no error or illegality in the order passed court below.
30. We are of the opinion that"tl?1e"E-pppell.arit:' made out any case to interfere the order ~. the court below. Accordinglybboth are l dismissed with costs. V p_