SESHA BHAT Vs. INDIRABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

(2.) Plaintiff filed the suit claiming that the suit schedule property was his having fallen to his share at a family partition at an earlier point of time; that he had permitted the defendant to occupy the house as a licensee; that the defendant obtained his signature on a blank paper representing that it was required to give "varadi" to the revenue authorities in regard to partition and on securing such signature on a blank paper, he got an agreement for sale written up alleging that the suit schedule property was being sold under the said agreement to the defendant by the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 300/- of which a sum of Rs. 100/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement which was in the year 1977. He further averred that such a document was a fraudulant one and when plaintiff wanted possession of the suit schedule property, the defendant refused stating that the property was his under the so- called agreement for sale and that in any event, he had perfected his title by adverse possession.

(3.) The defendant, on such plea of the plaintiff,resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that he was in possession in part performance of the contract under the said agreement for sale and in any event he had perfected his title by adverse possession. On such pleadings as many as six issues were framed. Burden on four of them was cast on the plaintiff, while two of the issues were required to be proved by the defendant. Those two issues were with reference to the agreement for sale and plea of adverse possession. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant having admitted possession pursuant to the agreement for sale, possession could only be permissive and could never be adverse and therefore, it rejected plea of adverse possession. On the question of execution of agreement for sale having regard to the conduct of the defendant inasmuch as he never sought specific performance of contract for many years, though the agreement provided for payment of balance of consideration within a year from the date of agreement. In those circumstances, it was held that agreement for sale whether genuine or fraudulant, was not a document intended to be acted upon.