Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. We have heard the Mr.V.M.Sheelvant learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for plaintiff caveator/respondent No.1. Respondent No.2/Manjunath did not contest the appeal.

13. Sri.V.M.Sheelvant contends that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. According to him, before purchasing the schedule property from defendant No.2/Manjunath, he verified the title deeds of Manjunath. Since, Manjunath obtained the sale deed through Court Commissioner in E.P. No.20/2005, pursuant to the decree passed in O.S. No.278/2002, the trial court was required to hold the appellant as bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. According to him, the sale deed obtained by the plaintiff from K.Sathya Narayana was not within the knowledge of the appellant, inspite of the best efforts made by him to trace the title of Manjunath. Only on the ground that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, he requests the Court to dismiss the suit by allowing the appeal.

Since both the points are inter-linked to each other, we would like to deal with both the points together.

16. Mr.V.M.Sheelvant does not dispute that the suit property was owned by K.Sathya Narayana. He has also not disputed that K.Sathya Narayana had sold the suit property in favour of plaintiff/M.K.Ravindra under a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1989 as per Ex.P-2. The documents produced by the plaintiff clearly disclose that the taxes are paid by him to the Town Municipal Council at Bellary and Khatha stands in his name.