CHARANJITLAL KOSHRAJ CHADDA Vs. SURESH RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal in this Court, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.691 of 1984.

(2.) THE Cross Objection Stamp No.255/1987 is filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this Second Appeal. This Cross Objection is also heard alongwith this Appeal.

(3.) THE defendant Nos.1 and 2, after service, entered appearance and filed written statement. The said written statement is filed by the respondent Nos.2 Suresh. The respondent No.2 Suresh refuted the contentions regarding the alleged agreement of sale dated 24.10.1975 and execution thereof by his father Ramchandra Shankar Bhondhave. He also denied the receipt of the amount of Rs.22,000/- as mentioned in the said agreement. The defendant No.2 in his written statement has refuted all the allegations regarding the execution of the said agreement to sale dated 24.10.1975 and alternatively has contended in the written statement that the signature of his father seems to have been obtained on stamp paper for some other purpose and that stamp paper in collusion with the defendants No.3 seems to have been manipulated by the present plaintiffs. He has stated in his written statement that it is a fraud committed by the plaintiffs on his deceased father Ramchandra. The defendant No.2 has also contended in the written statement that the plaintiffs in fact are tenant in the suit property and possession and arrears of rent is also claimed by him by serving legal notice. The said property is situated at Pune-Bombay High Way. According to the defendant. no.2, the properties in the vicinity of the suit property are valuable properties and at that time the property was fetching high price than mentioned in the said agreement. The defendant No.2 has stated in the written statement that only land in the present suit apart from the building will fetch about Rs.1.50 to 2.50 lakhs. The suit land claimed to be an ancestral property and it was not necessary for deceased Ramchandra to alienate the suit property. Ultimately the defendant No.2 claims for dismissal of the suit with compensatory costs.