HIMATLAL MAGANLAL Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA NATVERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the original defendant No. 1 of the Civil Suit No. 2306 of 1969 decreed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court 2 Court Ahmedabad in favour of the present respondent No. 1 the original plaintiff who had succeeded to get a declaration from the learned Judge that the document of sale dated 19-6-51 Ex. 74 on the record which was executed by the defendant No. 2 his father in favour of the defendant No. 1 (the present appellant who is his uncle was to the extent of his 1/4th share not binding the plaintiff. As a corollary the learned Judge further declared that the plaintiff was entitled to receive 1/4th share from the income of the property which admittedly was let out on long term basis on earlier occasion in favour of the original defendant No. 3 the New Asarva Manufacturing Co. Ltd. which was liable to pay only Rs. 1041.00 as the annual rent.

(2.) . The plaintiffs case was that the said sale deed executed by his father the defendant No. 2 on the record was without consideration and alternatively for a consideration which was tainted and therefore it did not bind the plaintiff who attained majority for the first time on 16-10-69 and who filed the suit in question soon thereafter on 19 for the relief which has already been stated by me above.

(3.) . The defence of the defendant No. 1 was that the defendant No. 2 had executed the sale deed in his favour for the consideration of Rs. 4000.00 against the amount of Rs. 5000.00 paid by the defendant No. 1 to one Anandilal Harilal to discharge the debt of the defendant No. 2 at the time when said Anandilal had filed a criminal complaint against the defendant No. 2 alleging that the defendant No. 2 had cheated said Anandilal after borrowing title deeds of the property the only evidence of the mortgage transaction under a false protect. The defendant No. 1 had undertaken to discharge that debt of the defendant No. 2 and in fact he had done so by paying Anandilal Rs. 5000.00 and against his acceptance of that liability to pay Anandilals dues this sale deed of the half share of the defendant No. 2 in the suit property was executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 with the remaining liability of Rs. 1000.00 to be met by the defendant No. 2 thereafter which the defendant No. 1 alleged the defendant No. 2 had never done but with no legal consequences because the defendant No. 1 had not thought it fit to proceed against his brother the defendant No. 2 for the said amount