N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010

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_rsist<§m; persuasive attempts for payment of balance sale eonsiderat1(>z1 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<:octed vdocurhen-tvélfilaiiitifi it does not take any steps to V.'}')'I'{-}\'V/K1' sander-..beyond all reasonable doubt by sair'unor'tir1:gfstaittpypaper register in which referenceto .sale:'oVfV"sta:gr:pl which Ex.Pi, the agreement ofrsale £:dE1,li€('i written. In the absence of same :l_'>-"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.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court