BHAGIRATHAVVA Vs. GAVADAPPA RUDRAPPA SOPINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONCURRENT findings are called in question before this Court u/S 100 CPC by filing the appeal. Plaintiffs of O.S. No. 50/2001 which was pending on the file of Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bailhongal are before this Court. Respondents are the defendants in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court.

(2.) THIRD plaintiff -Udachappa died during thependency of the suit. Suit was filed for the relief of declaration to the effect that the sale deed executed by the first plaintiff Smt. Bhagaratevva and deceased Udachappa on 29.01.1980 in favour of defendant no.1 -Gavadappa is null and void and that it is the outcome of fraud played on the executors. Further relief of declaration is sought that it is null and void on the ground that the deed has not been registered in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Registration Act and the rules framed therein. Plaintiffs are stated to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and that possession has never been parted in favour of defendants. Since plaintiffs came to knowledge of the alleged sale deed in the year 2001 they had to file suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiffs, first defendant is residing in a house opposite to the house of plaintiff and that plaintiff no.1 was vending milk to the house of the first defendant. In this regard both of them very cordial and taking advantage of the cordiality, the first plaintiff approached the first defendant to get the name of her another deceased son be deleted from the CTS records. In this regard she approached the first defendant to do the needful. It is her case that first defendant took her signature and the signature of her son, deceased third plaintiff -Udachappa on some records assuring them that the name of her another deceased son would be deleted. She had implicit faith in the defendants and therefore she subscribed signature along with her deceased son. Later in the year 2001 she came to know that the signatures obtained from them are to create document as a registered deed and thereby cause prejudice to them.

(3.) DEFENDANTS have filed detailed written statement denying all the material averments. According to them, the deed dated 29.01.1980 is an absolute sale deed registered in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act and it was registered by the plaintiff no.1 and her deceased son on receiving a sum of Rs.1,500/ - as consideration and that she was personally present to admit execution of the sale deed and that Khatha is stated to have been changed into his name on the basis of the sale deed and the CTS entries have been incorporated in his name on the basis of the sale deed. Defendants have denied all the material averments found in the plaint and have called upon the plaintiffs to prove contents of the plaint strictly. With these pleadings defendants had requested the Court to dismiss the suit. On the basis of the above pleadings following issues are framed: