VAGHARI GALABHAI AMTHABHAI Vs. SATWARA LAXMANBHAI VITHALBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) Brief facts of the case go to show that the present respondent purchased a house, as described in the plaint, situated in Vaghari Vas of Kheralu town, vide a registered document, executed on 9th June 1976 for the consideration of Rs. 1,500/ -. Present respondent, Sathwara Laxmanbhai Vithalbhai, paid the consideration, but according to him, though there were averments in the document of purchase, which is produced at Exh. 19 that the possession of the suit house was handed over to the plaintiff, but in fact, the possession was only handed over to plaintiff -respondent -Sathwara Laxmanbhai Vithalbhai constructively and not actually. Therefore, Sathwara Laxmanbhai Vithalbhai filed the above -mentioned Suit No. 110 of 1976, in the Court of Civil Judge (JD), Kheralu, for recovery of possession of the suit house, on the strength of registered document at Exh. 19, against the present appellant -original defendant, from whom the plaintiff had purchased the above -said suit house, vide document executed on 9th June 1976, produced at Exh. 19. The suit was contested by the present appellant by filing the written statement. It was contended that the said document, Exh. 19 was not of outright sale. It was contended by the defendant that there were money dealings between the plaintiff and defendant, and tor the security, the house was mortgaged to the plaintiff, and by misrepresentation, a sale deed got executed by the plaintiff. It was further contended that the market value of the suit house at the relevant lime was Rs. 5,000/ - and, therefore, the document was executed by the defendant with the understanding that the same was document of collateral security for the money dealing between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant also contended that the consideration was not passed which alleged to have passed as mentioned in the document. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence and hearing both the sides, the Trial Judge came to his conclusion that the defendant has failed to prove his contention that there was a money dealing between the parties, and that the house was worth Rs. 5,000/ -, and that the house was newly constructed, and that the document was got executed by misrepresentation of fact. The learned Civil Judge (JD), Kheralu, decreed the suit for the recovery of the possession in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) xxx xxx xxx.