MAYA NAMDEORAO KHARODKAR Vs. BHAGYASHREE PRAMOD DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the respondent no.2 herein defendant no.1 was the owner of the suit property which is plot bearing No.12 admeasuring about 2700 sq.ft. On 29.11.1994, the respondent no.1 herein original plaintiff purchased this plot from the defendant no.1 for consideration of Rs.75,000/. On account of the fact that the plaintiff's husband was in service the plaintiff travelled with her husband from place to place outside Amravati. On 14.7.2001 when the plaintiff and her husband visited the suit property, they found the appellant defendant no.3 in possession thereof. On 15.7.2001, the plaintiff issued a telegram to the defendant no.3 to stop the construction work undertaken by her. She then approached the defendant no.1 who was her vendor. After making further enquiries it was found that on 21.8.1996 the defendant no.1 had sold the suit property to the defendant no.2. Thereafter on 15.4.1998, the defendant no.2 sold the suit property to the defendant no.3. In aforesaid facts, the plaintiff on 15.12.2001 filed suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 21.8.1996 and 15.4.1998 were null and void and did not confer title on defendant no.3. She sought vacant possession of the suit property along with a prayer for mandatory injunction that the construction made by the defendant no.3 be directed to be demolished.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement. The defendant no.1 took the stand that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was a nominal document. The defendant no.2 in his written statement pleaded that after making due enquiries, he had purchased the suit property from the defendant no.1. The defendant no.3 filed reply to the application for temporary injunction that was moved by the plaintiff and in that reply a stand was taken that she was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration having purchased the same from the defendant no.2. It was pleaded that initially the defendant no.3 had purchased plot no.11 and thereafter the suit plot which was adjoining. It was further pleaded that after obtaining a loan, the defendant no.3 had started construction on both the plots. The defendant no.3 adopted this reply as her written statement.