Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. I have heard the counsel for both the appellant and the first respondent and considered the matter carefully. The admitted facts are that the first defendant had entered into an agreement for sale, Ex.A.1 dated 14.5.1983, that of the total sale consideration, he has received Rs. 20,000 on various dates, that though the first defendant had got possession of the property on 28.4.1984, he, instead of executing the sale in favour of the plaintiff, had sold the property under Ex.B-1 sale deed dated 26.6.1985 in the Sub Registrar's office, Parasalai in Kerala.

8. The suit property is situate in Kanyakumari District and in the jurisdiction Sub-Registrar of Nagercoil. However, the first defendant had executed the sale deed Ex.B-1 dated 26.6.1985 at Parasalai of Kerala State. To enable such a sale, the property at S.No.80/1, Parasalai Village in Neyyartin Karai Taluk, is shown as a security. The first respondent/plaintiff has produced Ex.A.6 Certificate from the Tahsildar stating that Sri Rajavel (D1) has no possession or ownership of the property in S.No.80/1, which was shown as security for the Ex.B-1 sale. If there is no such property in existence, it follows that Ex.B-1 sale deed cannot be a valid sale.