S. LOKANATHA Vs. S. VARALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. 6692/99 granting to the respondents half share in the schedule premises along with the 2nd defendant-Venkateshaiah. Heard. The appeal is admitted and taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) From what the learned counsel on both sides have urged and on perusal of the records, the following contextual facts manifest:

(3.) Sri Deviprasad Shetty, learned counsel for the appellant was at his best to contend that the transaction between Subbaiah and Rukamma documented on 24.3.1971 is an absolute sale wherein no conditions are stipulated, nor there is any restriction on the right of Rukamma. He submits, Ex.D1 would show Rukamma having purchased the property, had agreed to re-convey it to Subbaiah subject to terms stipulated in the conveyance agreement-Ex.D2. Since Subbaiah had not complied with the conditions stipulated in the re-conveyance agreement-Ex.D2, his right was lost. Besides Subbaiah had not sought enforcement of specific performance of the re-conveyance agreement during his lifetime. Consequent to such default, the right acquired by Rukamma vide sale deed dated 22.4.1971 (Ex.D1) was unfettered and she enjoyed right, title and interest. While being the absolute owner, she transacted with the appellant and on receipt of sale consideration, sold the property unto him vide sale deed dated 18.10.1999. Therefore, appellant has acquired the schedule property to the exclusion of all others and particularly legal heirs of Venkateshaiah, for valuable consideration and unless that transaction is annulled or declared to be void, it binds the heirs who are respondents 2 to 7 in this appeal.