Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The civil Suit is in O.S.No.68/2014 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi [for short, 'the civil Court'] and the writ proceedings is in W.P.No.101046/2021. The appeal in NC: 2024:KHC-D:6935-DB R.F.A.No.100272/2015 is filed calling in question the civil Court's judgment and decree dated 23.09.2015 refusing to interfere with sale deed. The intra-court appeal in W.A.No.100305/2021 is filed calling in question the Writ Court's order dated 08.10.2021. The Writ Court has declared that the sale deed dated 23.08.2006 is void because of the lack of statutory prior approval. The writ Court has directed the appellant to refund a sum of Rs.1,07,64,600/- [the sale consideration] along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the sale till the date of the payment.

10.6 The civil Court in the light of these rival submissions has framed Issues such as whether the

- 28 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6935-DB plaintiff proves that the KHB and its officials have obtained the impugned sale deed dated 23.08.2006 suppressing material facts from him and by playing fraud on him, whether the sale deed dated 23.08.2006 is a void deed, whether the suit is barred by limitation and whether the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property. The civil Court has also framed additional Issues which require the plaintiff to prove that the fourth defendant [a member of the Bar who allegedly lured him to execute the sale deed] had received a sum of Rs.29,64,000/-.

10.8 The civil Court, answering the issue on whether the plaintiff proves that impugned sale deed dated 23.08.2006 is obtained by misrepresentation and by playing fraud on him and that the sale deed is void, after referring to the different authorities relied upon by the rival parties on the proposition to test the claim of misrepresentation and fraud, has opined that [a] the plaintiff has participated in the meeting held on 17.03.2006 under the Chairmanship of the

- 30 -

15.1 The plaintiff even in the writ petition in WP No. 65687/2009, as part of his grievance with the transaction, has alleged that the sale deed dated 23.08.2006 is void because there is no prior approval of the State Government, but ultimately this writ petition has culminated with a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 30910/2013 reserving liberty to the

- 66 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6935-DB plaintiff to file a suit to impugn the sale deed dated 23.08.2006. As such, this Court is in respectful agreement with the writ Court's finding in this regard.