GANGARAM RANABA Vs. DATTO APPAJI POWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which are material for decision of this appeal are briefly these: The suit house originally belonged to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. On 5th July 1946, they agreed to sell this house to the plaintiff for Rs. 2000/ -. Rs. 125/- were paid by the plaintiff as earnest money. The balance was to be paid on the 17th September 1946, when the document was to be executed and registered. On 17th September 1946, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then presented it for registration, but the Sub Registrar refused to register it. The plaintiff then applied to the Registrar, Kurundwad senior under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act. On the 25th July 1947, the Registrar directed that the document should be registered. On the 8th March 1948 the State merged with the Indian Union. Thereafter the plaintiff applied to the Inspector General of Registration complaining that he had not been informed about the result of his application to the Registrar. This officer made inquiries and on the 26th August 1948 ho wrote to the District Registrar that the orders passed by the District Registrar, Kurundwad senior on 25th July 1947, should be given effect to and that the plaintiff should be asked to present the document for registration within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order before the Sub Registrar, Angol: see Exhibit 41. The District Registrar accordingly wrote to the plaintiff on 13th September 1948 asking him to present the document for registration within 30 days before the Sub-Registrar, Angol. The plaintiff then presented the document for registration on the 16th September 1948 and it was registered. Before then, on the 24th March 1947 defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sold the suit; house to defendant No. 3 who also obtained possession of it. The sale deed in favour of defendant No. 3 was duly registered. On the 4th November 1949 the plaintiff filed the present suit for obtaining possession of the suit property.

(2.) THE defendants contended that the registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was not valid that the signatures of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on this sale deed had been obtained by fraud and that the plaintiff had not paid the consideration for the safe deed except Rs. 125/ -. Various other contentions were also raised, but we are not concerned with these in this appeal.

(3.) THE trial court held that the registration of the document was valid but that Rs. 1800/-were due from the plaintiff. Accordingly the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff entitling him to recover possession of the suit house on his paying Rs. 1800/- to defendant No. 3.