CHINTAMAN Vs. DNYANESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT Chintaman Gajanan Deo filed a complaint against the accused-respondent No, 1 for prosecuting the accused for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant who is an employee as a teacher under the Zila Parishad, Yeotmal, was posted to village Arjuna. He used to come from Yeotmal every day to the place of his duty, and therefore, he decided to purchase a house from the accused. So a talk in that respect took place between him and the accused. One Madse Guruii (P. W. 2), who was also a teacher, was present during the course of these negotiations. The accused agreed to sell his house for Rupees l,500/ -. The complainant had made a specific enquiry from the accused as to Whether the said house was either mortgaged or had anv other encumbrances. The accused made a clear statement to the complainant that the house was free from all encumbrances and that he could purchase it safely. Relying on this representation of the accused, the complainant agreed to purchase the said house and ultimately purchased the same by sale-deed executed on 7-6-1968. The complainant paid to the accused an amount of Rs. 1,500/-and the sale-deed was duly executed and registered. The accused also delivered possession of the said house to the complainant.

(2.) IN the month of October 1968 the complainant came to know that a proclamation of sale was affixed to the property proclaiming that it would be sold for recovery of the dues of Co-operative Thrift Society, Yeotmal. It transpired that the said house property was mortgaged with the Yeotmal Co-oprative Thrift Society vide mortgage-deed dated 10-3-1952. The complainant had ultimately to pay the amount. Prior to the payment of the amount, the complainant approached the accused and enquired about the previous dealings and also informed him that the house was going to be auctioned. The accused, however, remained indifferent and stated that the complainant being a purchaser of the property is responsible for the payment of the mortagage dues to the Society. He refused to talk to the complainant and asked the complainant to leave his house. Because the complainant had already purchased the house he thought it expedient to protect his interest, and therefore, ultimately paid the loan of Rs. 275/- on 5-2-1969 and got the property released. In this view of the matter, as the complainant was cheated by the accused the present complaint was filed against the accused person.

(3.) THE accused admitted that he had agreed to sell his house to the complainant. He further admits the execution of the sale-deed. He further admits that in the year 1962 he had obtained a loan from the Co-operative Thrift Society. Yeotmal and that he had mortgaged this house with the said Society. It is also admitted by him that on the day the house was sold by him to the complainant the loan was not repaid and the mortgage was in existence. However, it is stated by him that he had communicated this fact to the complainant orally and that knowing full well about the said mortagage the complainant agreed to purchase the house. According to the accused, the said house was in fact sold for Rs. 1,732/-, but the complainant paid him an amount of Rs. 1,500/- only after deducting an amount of Rs. 232/- on account of this loan. The accused denied that he has ever suppressed or concealed the fact that the house property was already mortagaged. He also examined one Ganesh Baliram in his defence.