KENCHAIAH Vs. NAGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of original plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006 passed by the learned III Addl. District Judge, Tumkur in R.A.No.133/2004 (old R.A.No.113/1990) dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.12.1990 passed in O.S.No.322/1989 passed by the learned Munsiff and JMFC, Sira.

(2.) THE facts leading to the case are, the original deceased plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 30.01.1979 on the ground that it was obtained by the defendant by practcing fraud and misrepresentation and also for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.39 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas and southern portion of the said survey number consisting of bagayath and dry, both measuring 4 acres 7 guntas, as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. It is the contention of the original plaintiff that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule land and defendant is known to him and for some period the plaintiff was staying along with defendant and as the plaintiff was suffering from ailments, in the guise of getting the treatment to the plaintiff, the defendant and his henchmen took the plaintiff's left thumb impressions on the blank papers stating that they are required for the purpose of getting the pension sanctioned and on the basis of the said papers the defendant got created the sale deed. It is also his contention that the suit lands are fertile lands, wherein the plaintiff has planted variety of fruit bearing trees and the defendant showing only Rs.3,000/ - consideration amount, created the false sale deed. It is also his contention that he has installed electric pump -set in the schedule lands by digging a well and he was irrigating both the suit schedule properties. In the year 1984 as there was difference of opinion between the original plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff left the house of the defendant and came out along with his bullock carts, at that time, the defendant was telling before the villagers that he has already obtained the sale deed from the plaintiff and he will see how the plaintiff will survive. From the villagers the plaintiff came to know about the alleged sale deed and hence, from the date of knowledge the suit is in time. Accordingly, he filed the suit.

(3.) THE defendant appeared and filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint that the sale deed is because of the fraud and misrepresentation. He contended that the plaintiff took out the suit properties for sale for the improvement of other lands and also for the payment of loan amount in the banks and the defendant offered to purchase the suit lands for Rs.3,000/ - for which the plaintiff agreed and accordingly, the plaintiff executed the registered sale deed in his favour and put the defendant in possession of the suit schedule properties and from the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. He has planted fruit bearing trees and he never committed any fraud or misrepresentation.