KESHAVRAO GIRJUBA SINGARE Vs. CHANDRABHAN BHOJAJI SINGARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed against him in regular civil appeal No. 199 of 1972 by the learned District Judge at Aurangabad who reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalna in regular civil suit No. 71 of 1969 and it arises out of the following facts.

(2.) The suit land survey No. 22/2 admeasuring 10 acres 4 gunthas situated at village Somthana in Jalna Tahsil of the Aurangabad district was of the ownership of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sold this land to him for an amount of Rs. 3,000/-by a registered sale deed dated 18-41966 and handed over possession of the land to him. He alleged further that in June, 1968, the defendant unlawfully dispossessed him and hence he filed this suit for possession and for past mesne profits etc.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit on several grounds. He denied the execution of the sale deed, the handing over of possession and the alleged forcible dispossession. He contended that he had obtained some loan from Co-operative Society for sinking a well in his land and he was short of the funds, for proceeding with the work further he approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rupees 1000/-. According to the defendant, the plaintiff agreed on 16-4-1966 to advance him a loan of Rs. 1000/- on the condition that the defendant executed a simple mortgage of the suit land in his favour. According to the defendant they went to Jalna on 18-4-1966 for the execution of the deed and at that time the plaintiff practised fraud, undue influence and misrepresentations on him and obtained from him a sale deed in respect of the suit land. It is sufficient to state that the details about the fraud, undue influence stated by him in para 4 of his written statement are totally different from the particulars given by him in his sworn testimony before the trial Court, The defendant contended further that the sale deed was a sham, bogus document and was not to be acted upon and was in the nature of a simple mortgage under which the plaintiff had obtained a security for the loan.