RAJARATHNAM Vs. GANGALAKSHAMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The counsel for appellant submission is accepted.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that plaintiff is the owner of the site No.18 situated in Sy.No.111 of Shivanapura Village by virtue of an agreement of sale dtd. 11/6/1997. The defendant No.1 handed over the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 by means of power of attorney and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.24,000.00 and the plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration amount to the defendant No.1 and she put him in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 has agreed to sell the same contending that by virtue of a partition entered into among the members of her family dtd. 8/6/1969, the defendant No.1 was allotted 1 acre, 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.111. As per the partition, the property mutated in M.R.No.2/92-93 and number of sites, out of which the site No.18 was agreed to be sold in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 was in need of money for their family necessity and daughter marriage and in view of the ban imposed by the Government of Karnataka, the document is not registered. The plaintiff constantly requesting to execute the sale deed in his favour, but the defendant is postponing the same for one or the other reasons. The defendant No.1 has formed a layout showing the location of the sites agreed to be sold in favour of the plaintiff. After ascertaining the boundaries of the layout plan and the agreement of sale, the plaintiff took possession and continued to be in possession of the sites. Without any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, the defendant No.2 came to plaintiff's site in 3rd week of March, 2007 and tried to disturb his possession. The defendants are the powerful personality in the area and disturbed the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, sought for the relief of permanent injunction.

(3.) In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant No.2 appeared through counsel and not chosen to file any written statement. The defendant No.1 has appeared through his counsel and denied the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff is totally stranger and he has no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property. The agreement of sale is got up, concocted, created and fraudulent documents and the same has no value in the eye of law. The defendant No.1 along with the family members sold the entire land bearing Sy.No.111, measuring 3.11 guntas to the defendant No.2 through registered sale deed dtd. 27/12/2006 for valuable consideration. The defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property including the suit schedule property.