MATHEW JACOB @ RAJU Vs. E.J.JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concurrent decree in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title is assailed by the sixth defendant in the suit.

(2.) The plaint schedule property has an extent of 10 acres which is a portion of a larger extent of 35 acres. The sixth defendant, who is the contesting defendant resists the claim of the plaintiff relying on Ext.B1 agreement for sale alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff, and claims the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court remanded the matter back to the trial court to obtain expert opinion on Ext.B1 agreement, the genuineness of which was disputed by the plaintiff. The order of remand was challenged before this Court in FAO (RO) 51/2016. This Court interfered with the order of remand and directed the first appellate court to initially decide on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and on the entitlement of the sixth defendant being found, then the question of genuineness of Ext.B1 was directed to be probed into. Pursuant to the said direction, the first appellate court held against the plea under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The decree for recovery of possession on the strength of title was consequently, affirmed.