BALBHIM Vs. SONABABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal From Order takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 10 th of July, 2003 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1993. Brief facts of the case are as under

(2.) The original plaintiff is owner and possessor of land Survey No. 206, admeasuring 1 Hector situated at Ambajogai, (here-in-after referred as "suit land"). It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in need of money for domestic expenses. Therefore, in the year 1976 he demanded Rs. 4,000/- with defendant No. 1. The defendant showed his readiness to pay the said amount subject to condition that if the plaintiff is ready the sale-deed of the suit land for the security of the said loan. It was decided that the defendant No. 1 will cultivate the land of the plaintiff, he had to get 3/4 th share towards the interest of the amount of Rs. 4,000/- and had to give 1/4 th share to the plaintiff. It was agreed that the plaintiff should execute the sale-deed in favour of defendant by way of security to the said amount and when the plaintiff replays the said amount, defendant will executed the re-conveyance deed and to have a faith to both of them. The sale-deed was agreed to be executed in favour of 3 rd party i.e. defendant No. 2. Accordingly, the plaintiff by way of the security of money given by defendant No. 1 executed the sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 7 th April, 1976 as agreed. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that against the agreed terms defendant No. 2 is executed the said sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 17 th March, 1978. This fact came to the knowledge of plaintiff when defendant No. 1 refused to give his 1/4 th share in the income of the said land. Sale-deed in between both the defendants is bogus and illegal, not binding on the plaintiff. It is further contention of the plaintiff that the Defendant No. 1 is enjoying suit3 land illegally and against the agreement since one year prior from filing of the suit. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to get executed reconveyance deed from defendant No. 1 and also entitled to claim possession. However, defendant No. 1 avoided to refused to execute the reconveyance deed, and therefore, plaintiff issued notice to the defendant No. 1 on 6 th October, 1984. In spite of notice, the defendant No. 1 denied the transaction. The defendant No. 2 did not reply to the said notice. The cause of action arose on 15 th November, 1984 to file the suit. The plaintiff / appellant filed the suit for reconveyance deed of the sale, which was executed by way of security at serial No. 659 dated 7 th April, 1976 in favour of defendant No. 2 about the suit land by accepting Rs. 4,000/- by the defendant No. 1 and also for obtaining possession of the suit land from him. It is also prayed that the saledeed executed in between both the defendants dated 17 th March, 1978 be declared as not binding upon the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant No.2 was duly served remained absent. Hence suit proceeded ex-parte against him, as per order of the Trial Court dated 14 th February, 1985. The defendant No. 1 i.e. appellant herein appeared and strongly resisted the suit claim by filing Written Statement at Exh. 13.