HEMALATHA Vs. TUKARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dtd. 4/2/2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in R.S.A. No. 163 of 2000, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by Respondent-Plaintiff Tukaram (now deceased) and set aside the judgment dtd. 13/12/1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Bidar in R.A. No. 12 of 1986. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the suit filed by Respondent-Plaintiff seeking relief of injunction and declaration to declare the Sale Deed and Rental Agreement dtd. 12/11/1971 as sham and not to be acted upon, has been decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the Respondent-Plaintiff Tukaram (now deceased) mortgaged his house bearing House No. 2-5-9, Pansal Taleem, near Fathedarwaza Darwaza, M. Bidar (hereinafter referred to as "suit house ") in favor of one Mr. Sadanand Garje vide registered Mortgage Deed dtd. 7/9/1966 for a sum of ? 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only). On the same date, the Respondent-Plaintiff 's brother Mr. Ramakrishnappa-Defendant No.3 (now deceased) executed another Mortgage Deed in favour of Mr. Sadanand Garje for an amount of ? 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for another property bearing House No. 2-5-9/1.

(3.) It is the case of Appellants-Defendant Nos.1 and 2 that when the Respondent-Plaintiff was unable to comply with Mr. Sadanand Garje 's demand for repayment of mortgage amount, the Appellant-Defendant No.2 Mr. Bharatraj was approached by the Respondents to discharge the mortgage amount to Mr. Sadanand Garje and in consideration of the said discharge, the suit house was agreed to be sold to Appellant-Defendant No.1.