NAGOSA Vs. MAHABALESHWAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unsuccessful plaintiffs regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2012 made in R.A. No. 91/10 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Gadag, affirming the judgment and decree dated 01.10.10 made in O.S. No. 224/2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, dismissing the suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.

(2.) The plaintiff/appellant had filed suit contending that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and said suit schedule property originally belongs to 2nd defendant who acquired through succession and name of 2nd defendant and her mother was entered in the City Survey Records and out of two numbers one Shettappa Sanganavar purchased the western property in the year 1997 and after such sale, the suit property remained with 2nd defendant for her legal necessity she had sold the suit property to plaintiff on 19.4.2006 for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed. The adjoining owner of the property i.e., Shetteppa, who is tenant of the suit property and hence symbolic possession was delivered to the plaintiff After purchase, the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant had entered into agreement to purchase the suit property from the 2nd defendant in the year 1982 and 1st defendant filed O.S. No. 385/93 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Court, Gadag, for the relief of specific performance of contract which came to be decreed and the appeal filed against the same came to be dismissed. In pursuance of the decree, 1st defendant filed E.P. No. 26/2004 and got executed the sale deed through the Court Commissioner and also obtained delivery of possession of the suit property. The plaintiff came to know this fact recently when the 1st defendant obtained order for delivery of possession of the suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiff verified the records and came to know about all these proceedings and the sale deed. Before purchasing the suit property the plaintiff made enquiry regarding title and possession of the suit property of 2nd defendant. Therefore, he contended that plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and 1st defendant never disclosed all these facts and the alleged agreement dated 13.9.1982 is found to be bogus without any sale deed. Therefore, he approached the court for the relief sought for.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 appeared through their respective Counsel. Defendant No. 2 did not file written statement and only 1st defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and he admitted the earlier proceedings made in O.S. No. 385/1993 and E.P. No. 26/2004 but he denied that the plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. The 1st defendant further contended that 2nd defendant and her mother executed an agreement of sale in his favour on 11.6.1982 and when the 2nd defendant did not come forward to execute sale deed after death of her mother, he was forced to file O.S. No. 385/93 which came to be decreed in his favour on 20.12.97 and the appeal filed also came to be dismissed 15.6.2004. On the basis of the said decree the 1st defendant filed E.P. No. 26/04 and got delivery of possession through Court Commissioner under registered sale deed dated 18.8.2000. The plaintiff in collusion with 2nd defendant filed the present suit in order to harass the 1st defendant and to drag on the proceedings. On these grounds, he sought for dismissal of the suit.