MINOR BALAMURUGAN Vs. GOVINDASAMY PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the suit is the appellant.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows : THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the suit properties belong to him and also for recovery of possession and mesne profits. It is admitted that the salt properties originally belonged to the 2nd defendant. He agreed to convey the properties to the plaintiff on 16. 02. 1984 and the 1st defendant also competed in purchasing the very same properties. However, on 17. 02. 1984 the 2nd defendant signed in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and received a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for remittance to the Village Co-operative Bank at Thirunavalur. THE balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- has to be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the document. Possession of the property was also given to the plaintiff. Due to this, defendants 1 and 2 conspiring themselves together with a conspiracy created an antedated sale deed and subsequently registered the same on 23. 02. 1984. THE plaintiff on coming to know of the sale in favour of the 1st defendant, sent objections to all concerned. THE plaintiff also moved the authorities concerned for compulsory registration of the document in his favour and after observing all the formalities, his sale deed was registered on 03. 09. 1984. Under the circuctstances the sale in favour of the 1st defendant is not valid under law. On 05. 03. 1984, the 1st defendant trespassed into the property and hence the suit. THE first defendant filed a written statement admitting the title of the 2nd defendant. He denied the case of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant agreed to convey the property for a sum of Rs. 4,200/- on 16. 02. 1984 and also the execution of the sale deed dated 17. 02. 1984. Defendants 1 and 2 entered into a sale of the property on 12. 11. 1983 for a consideration of rs. 4200/- and as it was late, they agreed to register the same on 14. 11. 1983. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant was not keeping good health and as such, the sale deed was registered only on 24. 02. 1984. Moreover, the 1st defendant was cultivating the property since 1980 on varam basis as a lessee. THE allegation that the 1st defendant trespassed into the property is not correct. THE sale in favour of the plaintiff is not valid under law and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. THE trial Court framed 4 issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs, P. Ws. l to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked and on the side of the first defendant, D. Ws. l and 2 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-14 were marked. THE trial Court decreed the suit and aggrieved against this, the defendant preferred A. S. No. 5 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court , Villupuram and the learned judge after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiff has come forward with the present second appeal.

(3.) THE lower appellate Court had correctly considered the entire documents filed on either side and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief. THEre is inconsistency in the version of P. Ws. l to 3 regarding the agreement of sale as well as discharge of other loans. No doubt, the document in favour of the plaintiff was registered on 03. 09. 1984, but the sale in favour of the 1 st defendant was registered on 24. 02. 1984. THE 2nd defendant having executed two sale deeds, has kept quiet and simply watching the proceedings. THE prior title deeds relating to the 2nd defendant were entrusted only to the 1st defendant. This is one circumstance to show that the 2nd defendant might have executed the sale in favour of the 1st defendant only on 12. 11. 1983 as per Ex. B-4. THE 1st defendant alone produced the title deeds and they were also marked in the trial Court. This being so, the plaintiff has not chosen to explain as to why he was not able to get the prior title deeds, if he has got the sale deed earlier in point of time. Patta was also transferred in the name of the 1st defendant in pursuance of the sale deed and kist has also been paid. THEse are some of the circumstances to show that the sale in favour of the 1st defendant was, earlier in point of time and this being so, the 2nd defendant has no right whatsoever to convey the very same property to the plaintiff at a later point of time. Although the plaintiff contended that the letters were sent to the concerned authorities, they have not been properly proved. THE 1st defendant was already a tenant in the property and therefore if already the 2nd defendant agreed to convey the property to the plaintiff then he should have verified about the delivery of possession. THEre is absolutely no evidence that Ex. B-4 had been ante-dated by the 1st defendant.