Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Subsequently, the Defendant No.5 got impleaded herself in the present suit. The Defendant No.4 has not claiming any title over the Suit Schedule Property. The Defendant No.5 was claiming title over the Suit Schedule Property through her father under the alleged Will alleged to have been executed by her father in her favour as per Ex.D.41. But, the Defendant No.4 and 5 have not led any evidence and Defendant No.1 to 3 remained ex-parte and hence, the suit was decreed by this Court on 13.9.2013. Thereafter, Defendant No.5 approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing RFA No.1681/2013 on the ground that opportunity was not given to her to lead evidence and in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the Defendant No.6 got impleaded and the matter was remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by order dtd: 24.8.2015. Even after remand Defendant No.6 got examined its Representative as DW.1 and Defendant No.8 got examined its Partner as DW.2 and Defendant No.5 even after remand has not led any evidence in order to substantiate the contention taken in the written statement filed by her in the present case. Admittedly, the Sale Deed alleged to have been executed by the Defendant No.5 in favour of Defendant No.7 is during the pendency of the present suit and hence, the said Sale Deed is hit by the principles of lis- pendency as contemplated under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. The Defendant No.7 will not get any kind of right over the Suit Schedule Property, unless the Defendant No.5 proves her title over the Suit Schedule Property on the basis of the alleged Will as per Ex.D.41 and the alleged Sale Deed alleged to have been executed by Ahamad Hussain Saheb in favour of father of Defendant No.5 on 16.8.1988. In the present case, since the Defendant No.5 has not led any evidence, it is clear that the Defendant No.5 has failed to prove the title of her father over the Suit Schedule Property on the basis of the Sale Deed dtd: 6.8.1988 and also failed to prove that she acquired title over the Suit Schedule Property on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by her father as per Ex.D.41. The Defendant No.7 in turn executed Sale Deed dtd: 14.2.2008 in favour of the 6th Defendant during the pendency of the present suit. The said Sale Deed is also hit by the principles of lis- pendency and unless the Defendant No.1 to 5 proved their title over the Suit Schedule Property the Defendant No.6 and 7 cannot claim any kind of right over the Suit Schedule Property. It is also pertinent to note that the Defendant No.4 was impleaded in the present case since from the date of present suit. The Defendant No.4 has filed his written statement as per Ex.P.26 and has not claimed any title over the Suit Schedule Property, but he is aware that the litigation is pending between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 to 5 in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. The Defendant No.4 has not produced any oral or documentary evidence prior to remand or even after remand by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.1681/2013 filed by Defendant No.5. Since, the Defendant No.4 was aware of pending litigation, he cannot be said that the Defendant No.6 is the bonafide purchaser of the Suit Schedule Property. Since, the DW.1 is the original Defendant No.4 got examined himself as the authorized signatory of the Defendant No.6, the Defendant No.6 and 7 being the purchaser of the Suit Schedule Property during the pendency of the present suit, they cannot claim that they are the bonafide purchaser of the Suit Schedule Property. It is true, only because litigation is pending, there is no bar to execute Sale Deed in respect of the disputed property involved in the litigation. However, the right of the purchaser is subject to the result of the suit. Only if the Defendant No.1 to 5 proves their title over the Suit Schedule Property on the basis of the alleged Sale Deed in their respective name, the Defendant No.6 and 7 cannot claim any kind of right over the Suit Schedule Property. DW.1 during the cross-examination denied that he is the Defendant No.4 in the present case, but on comparing his signature on the vakalath and the written statement filed by him, it is clear that DW.1 is the Defendant No.4 in the present case. The signature of DW.1 on his vakalath and written statement are marked as Ex.P.26(a) and Ex.P.27(a) in the present case. Further it is clear that as on the date of Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.7 and also on the date of Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.6, DW.1 is aware about the litigation pending between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 to 5 in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. The Defendant No.6, 7 to 11 have taken several contentions in their written statement and also produced several documents in support of their case, but in view of the fact that the Defendant No.6, 7 to 11 are the purchaser of the property during the pendency of the litigation and the Defendant No.1 to 5 failed to prove their title over the Suit Schedule Property to execute the Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.6 and 7, it cannot be said that the said Sale Deeds are binding on the Plaintiffs. In view of the discussion made at the time of answering Issue No.1 to 3 and also in view of the discussion made above, it is clear that the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.5 in favour of Defendant No.7 on 23.4.2004 and the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.7 in favour of Defendant No.6 on 14.2.2008 is not binding upon the Plaintiffs title over the Suit Schedule Property. The Defendant No.6 was aware of the pending litigation as stated above, as the DW.1 was originally the Defendant No.4 in the present case and he is not claiming any right over the Suit Schedule Property and he got examined as DW.1 on behalf of Defendant No.6 in the present case. Hence, the Defendant No.6 cannot claim that he is the bonafide purchaser of the Suit Schedule Property under the Sale Deed dtd: 14.2.2008. Apart from this, in the present case, the Defendant No.7 to 11 have not filed any written statement. They have adopted the written statement filed by Defendant No.6. Even during the course of evidence, the contention taken by DW.2 is similar to the contentions taken by DW.1. Even the documents got marked by the DW.2 are the certified copies of the documents produced by DW.1 in the present case. Under these circumstances, it is clear that Defendant No.7 has not produced any new evidence, apart from the evidence produced by DW.1 in the present case. In view of the above discussion, I answer Issue No.4 and 5 in the Affirmative and Issue No.11 in the Negative.

It is also declared that the Sale Deeds dtd: 23.4.2004 and 16.2.2008 in favour of Defendant No.6 and 7 are also not binding upon the Plaintiffs as the same are hit by the principles of lis-pendency.

The Defendants or anybody on their behalf are hereby restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.

Draw decree accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of August 2020].

It is also declared that the Sale Deeds dtd: 23.4.2004 and 16.2.2008 in favour of Defendant No.6 and 7 are also not binding upon the Plaintiffs as the same are hit by the principles of lis-pendency.
The Defendants or anybody on their behalf are hereby restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Krishnaji Baburao Patil) XXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE.