HALINA C. GANGAPPA Vs. PRASANNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant defendant against respondent plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.7.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Madhugiri in RA No. 110/1994 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.9.1994 passed in O.S. No. 88/1984 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff, Madhugiri.

(2.) THE appellant has preferred the above appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the courts below on the grounds mentioned in appeal memorandum at ground Nos. 9 to 13.

(3.) THE appellant defendant appeared and filed his written statement denying the allegation that on 4.5.1982, he entered into an agreement for sale of suit schedule property for consideration of Rs. 2,000/ - with plaintiffs and has executed an agreement and taken the consideration of Rs. 2,000/ -. The further allegation that plaintiffs were put into the possession of the schedule property is also denied. Though the fact of legal notice is true, but further allegation that the defendant was liable and did not comply with the terms of contract is false. The plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any consideration at the same price as no consideration has been received by the defendant. The agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs is not the genuine document and it contravenes the law relating to the provisions of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1966 (for short 'the Act') and the suit schedule property is a fragment and cannot be transferable in law. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The defendant is in actual possession and as on the date of the suit, it was more than the value of Rs. 5,000/ -. As the defendant was in need of money, he hypothecated the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs and executed registered hypothecation deed dated 4.5.1982 for Rs. 2,000/ -. The plaintiffs have paid Rs. 1,500/ - only on the date of the document deducting Rs. 500/ - towards interest as agreed in the hypothecation deed. The possession was not intended to be transferred to the plaintiffs. The defendant has further contended that at the time of taking his signature to the hypothecation deed, the plaintiffs and the scribe might have fraudulently secured the signature and have concocted the document to cause trouble to him. He never executed the agreement of sale.