INDRAKUMAR Vs. ATMARAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) The appellant is the original defendant No. 1 against whom the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 8-1-1990 executed by their father-defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 was by practicing fraud and hence not binding on them. Further prayer of permanent injunction was also made by the plaintiffs. The trial Court granted relief of permanent injunction. However, the relief to the extent of declaration that the sale deed in question was obtained by practicing fraud was refused.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by aforesaid decree challenged the same by filing appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). The original plaintiffs did not file any cross objections, but argued that in view of the finding given against Issue No. 6B of the judgment of the trial Court, the sale deed in question was required to be declared as null and void. The first Appellate Court accepting said submission modified the decree passed by the trial Court and granted declaration that the sale deed dated 8-1-1990 was null and void. The appeal came to be dismissed and rest of the decree passed by the trial Court came to be confirmed. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant No. 1.