SUDESH JAYRAM RAUT Vs. PRABHAKAR VISHNU PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, reversing the Trial Court's decree and dismissing the appellant's suit. The suit was filed regarding a land and a shop structure thereon, for specific performance and a declaration against defendant nos. 1 and 2 as original owners and against defendant no. 3, in whose favour the owners had executed a sale deed. Defendant No. 1 died pending the suit. Thereafter, defendant no. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the shop structure. The suit was then amended, and the plaintiff prayed for directing the defendant no. 3 to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the land beneath the shop; however, the plaintiff continued with the prayer for a declaration that the sale deed in favour of defendant no. 3 is void to the extent of the land beneath the suit shop.

(2.) Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the original owners, and defendant no. 3 is the purchaser from defendant nos. 1 and 2. The appellant claims that he is entitled to specific performance of an agreement executed by defendant nos. 1 and 2. However, in view of the sale deed executed in favour of defendant no. 3, the decree for specific performance was passed by the trial Court against defendant no. 3, by declaring the sale deed in his favour as null and void. The trial Court's decree was challenged by the defendant no. 3 in the first appeal. The first appeal is allowed, and the suit is dismissed. Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiff.

(3.) The landed property and the structures were originally owned by two sisters, Bhikubai Devalekar and Indubai Devalekar (hereinafter referred to as the original owners). The original owners were joined to the suit as defendant nos. 1 and 2. Sudesh Raut, i.e., the plaintiff, was the tenant of one of the shops (the plaintiff is hereinafter referred to as 'Raut'). Defendant no. 3, Prabhakar Vishnu Patil, was the tenant in another structure (hereinafter referred to as 'Prabhakar'). Thus, the present dispute is between the two tenants of the original owners.