MAHABUBSAHEB Vs. GURULINGAPPA LAXMAN BENUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is directed against judgment of this court dated 25.03.2003 passed in R.S.A.No.81/1997. By that judgment, the second appeal was dismissed by answering the substantial question of law against the petitioner herein who was the appellant in the second appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that, the respondent/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.30/1983 before the court of Addl. Civil Judge, Bijapur, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.11.1978, and 26.07.1981. In that suit, the petitioner herein was arrayed as defendant No.8. Defendant Nos.1 to 7 were the persons who have executed the agreement in favour of respondent/plaintiffs. By judgment dated 22.01.1986, the suit was decreed by holding that the petitioner herein was not a bonafide purchaser for value in respect of suit property. The suit property consists of land bearing Block No.609 measuring 28-35 acres situated at Rugi Village, Indi Taluk, Bijapur District. According to the respondent/plaintiffs, they had entered into an agreement with defendant Nos.1 to 7 in the suit to purchase the said land for valuable consideration of Rs.30,000/-. On the date of agreement i.e., 21.11.1978 a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid and balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was agreed by the parties to be paid at the time of registration of the agreement. According to respondent/plaintiffs a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid to defendant Nos.1 to 7 on 26.07.1981 and another agreement was entered into under which vendors put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit land. When the suit for specific performance was filed the petitioner herein who was defendant No.8 in the said suit contended that his vendors namely, defendant Nos.1 to 7 had alienated the suit property to him for valuable consideration of Rs.24,000/-, under a registered sale-deed dated 12.10.1981. Therefore, he had become the owner in possession of suit land being a bonafide purchaser for value. In the circumstances, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) However, as already noted by judgment and decree dated 22.01.1986, the suit was decreed by holding that the petitioner herein i.e, defendant No.8 in that suit was not a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the petitioner herein preferred R.A.No.88/1990 before the II Addl. District Judge, Bijapur. The said appeal was dismissed on 30.11.1996, by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Being aggrieved by the judgments of the courts below, the petitioner herein preferred R.S.A.No.81/1997. That appeal was admitted by this court by framing the following substantial questions of law :-