B R SATYANARAYANA Vs. PAUL FRANCIS PINTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's Regular first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/ - with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the sale -deeds i.e., 2.5.1984 till the date of realization. The plaintiff has preferred cross -objection seeking inclusion of the expenses incurred by the cross -objector to the tune of Rs. 1,73,575/ - along with interest at 18% p.a.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

(3.) THE defendant executed a registered sale deed dated 02.05.1994 in favour of the plaintiff claiming that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Site Nos.20, 21 and 22 bearing House List Old No.80/1 and katha No.665/3, 544/2 situated at Arakere Village, Hulimavu Group Panchayath, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 90 feet and North to South 50 feet for a sale consideration of Rs. .1,14,000/ -. The sale deed was registered as Document No.692/94 -96. Further, on the same day i.e., 02.05.1994, the defendant executed another registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of sites Nos.26 and 27, in house list Old No.80/1 and Katha No.665/3, 544/2, situated at Arakere Village, Hulimavu Group Panchayat, Begur hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 50 feet for a sale consideration of Rs. .76,000/ -. In all, the defendant sold the above sites to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. .1,90,000/ - and acknowledged the receipt of the same. The plaintiff spent money towards the registration fee, stamp duty and other incidental expenses amounting to Rs. .63,000/ - and also spent Rs. .19,575.00 towards the improvement of the shed. He also spent Rs. .70,000/ - for putting up compound on the suit schedule property and he also incurred miscellaneous expenses of Rs. .10,000/ -. It is stated, when the plaintiff was about to complete the compound and effecting repairs to the shed, the BDA authorities came and demolished the shed as well as the compound stating that the properties purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant belong to the BDA and they had acquired the properties under the relevant notification much before the defendant sold the properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit against the BDA in O.S.No.3424/1996 on the file of the City Civil Court (CCH.13) and also sought for an order of injunction against the BDA. The injunction was not granted. It is thereafter, the plaintiff came to know about the acquisition of the properties by the BDA and vesting of the property in the BDA and the defendant had no manner of right, title and interest in the said properties. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendant with ulterior motive and without having any right, title or interest in the property and by suppressing the fact of acquisition by the BDA has sold the property in favour of the plaintiff by playing fraud. The plaintiff purchased the property in good faith and without knowing that the defendant had no right to sell the property and believing that the defendant was the owner of the said property. Thereafter, the plaintiff invested huge amount for improving the property. The defendant has made wrongful gain by misrepresenting and playing fraud on the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed refund of the money with interest at 18% per annum. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. .63,000/ - towards registration fee and incidental charges, Rs. .19,575.00 towards the improvement of the shed, Rs. .70,000/ - towards construction of the compound wall, Rs. .10,000/ - towards miscellaneous expenses, Rs. .11,000/ - towards conducting of O.S.No.3424/96 and Rs. .1,79,969.58 ps. towards interest. In all, a sum of Rs. .5,43,544.58 ps. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 20.1.1997 calling upon the defendant to pay the entire amount with interest at 18% p.a. It was duly served. The defendant sent untenable and evasive reply dated 7.2.1997 declining to pay the amount claimed. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. .5,43,544.58 ps with interest and costs.