BUDAVANAT SUBRAYA PALEKAR Vs. BABU VAJRA CHANDAVARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Counsel for the appellant submits that the first respondent died on 11-11-2002 and the respondents 2 and 3 are his sons and they are already on record and they sufficiently represent the estate of the first respondent. Therefore, no need to bring on record any other L. Rs.

(2.) THE second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Munsiff, Sirsi in OS No. 255/89 and confirmed in appeal by the Civil Judge, Senior division, Sirsi in RA No. 8/95. The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deed obtained by the defendant/respondent dated 28-5-1959 is illegal and outcome of fraud. The plaintiff contends that the suit schedule landed property absolutely belongs to him and he was in government service. On account of his frequent transfer from place to place the defendant was made to stay in the suit property since 1956 and allowed him to manage the property as he was his sisters husband. The revenue records, however, continued to be in the name of the plaintiff. It is said that in the year 1986, the defendant tried to secure mutation of his name in the revenue records. The plaintiff, on coming to know about fraud and fabrication of records, challenged the orders of mutation before revenue appellate authorities and also filed the present suit seeking declaration that the document of sale is illegal and not binding, also sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the alternate, it is contended that if for any reason the plaintiff is held to be not in the constructive possession, the relief of possession is sought for.

(3.) THE defendants in the written state ment stoutly denied the plaint allegations, contend that the sale is a genuine sale transaction for valid consideration. It is also contended that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed for dismissal.