Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)
Sri.K.V.Venkatachalapathy vs Sri.D.M.Babu Reddy on 19 August, 2016 cites

Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011

In support of the case of defendant he relied on AIR 2011 Supreme Court Page No.2344 in the case of Rangammal v/s Kuppuswami & another dated 13.05.2011; Head Note-(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 101 - Limitation Act (36 of 1963), S. 6 - Burden of proof - Plaintiff filing suit for partition against brother - Property of appellant, member of 31 O.S. No.16536/2005 other branch, included in schedule to suit - On ground that appellant's property was sold to father of plaintiff by de facto guardian of appellant, who was minor at time of sale because of legal necessity - Burden to prove such sale and its validity is on plaintiff - Cannot be placed on appellant - Objection raised by appellant to validity of sale by de facto guardian - Cannot be rejected on ground that respondent should have challenged genuineness of sale deed within period of limitation after attaining majority - Suit being collusive - Appeal allowed by levying costs. According to the said judgment the plaintiff has to prove that the sale deed dated 5.6.2002 is a bogus document and it is fraudulently got unregistered by the defendant; relating to the said dispute in order to prove the fraud played by the defendant, the plaintiff has to categorically get examine the necessary witness and bond writer including the Sub-Registrar, who are put their signature on the sale deed dated 5.6.2002. The said burden cannot be shifted upon the defendant, who is a bonafide purchaser of the said property. It is true that some of the stray admissions are given by the D.W.1 as discussed in the above said paras; but the total 32 O.S. No.16536/2005 defence of the defendant is that he has paid the sale consideration amount categorically to each suit sites and purchased the said properties as a bonafide purchaser. Only for the reason of not mentioned in the passbook or not passed the separate sale consideration receipt, it cannot be said that Ex.D.1 and D.7 are a void document. Because, upon perusal of the recitals of the sale deed, it is specifically mentioned that the owner of site No.24, kahatha No.724 by namely K.V.Venkatachalapathy having purchased the same under two duly registered sale deeds dated 5.2.2000 and 7.2.2000 respectively in the office of Sub-Registrar, KR Puram, Bengaluru, sold the above said site to meet the necessity of the family and clear the loans for a sale consideration amount of Rs.80,000/- for which the defendant/purchaser agreed to purchase the said site for Rs.80,000/- and the above said amount only paid by way of cash to the Venkatachalapathy this day. Thus, the vendor herein acknowledged the receipt of the sale consideration amount before the attesting witness. Regarding this, the D.W.1 has categorically stated in his oral evidence by stating that he has paid Rs.2,90,000/- for the purchase of 4 sites from the 33 O.S. No.16536/2005 plaintiff. But, no any proof of document is produced by the defendant except the sale deed Ex.D.1 and D.7. However, upon perusal of the other documents B-Khatha and Tax Paid Receipts about the suit schedule property paid for the period of 2008-2009 to 2015-2016 relating to suit schedule site. Exs.D.19 is a encumbrance certificate pertaining to the period of 1st April 2004 to 15th March 2013, in which it is mentioned that site No.22 & 23, khatha No.722 measuring 60 x 40 bounded by; East: Property of Dodda Gurappa, West: Site No.24, North: Site No.20 & 21, South:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 244 - G S Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next