SHRIRAM NIWRUTTI MAHALLE Vs. PANNALAL NARAYANDAS TOTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the unsuccessful defendant. The parties shall herein after be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under - One Narayandas Totala was the original owner of the suit site. Plaintiff . Pannalal is the adopted son of said Narayandas, he having been adopted on 3/7/1979. Said Narayandas died on 11/5/1981 leaving behind him the plaintiff as the only heir. The plaintiff, therefore, became the owner of the entire property upon death of said Narayandas. The plaintiff came to know that defendant no.2 Bhojraj has illegally transferred the suit site to defendant no.1 on 17/11/1984 by registered sale-deed. Defendant no.3 Gendabai had given consent for such transaction. The plaintiff submits that the said alienation made by defendant no.2 is illegal and not binding on him as he was minor at the time of alienation. It is contended that the plaintiff and his father Narayandas possessed sufficient income to maintain the plaintiff and therefore there was no necessity for the transfer of the suit site. The said property was sold without any permission of the competent authority. The plaintiff submits that defendant no.1 has unauthorisely changed the nature of the suit property in 1987 and he therefore filed the suit for declaration that the alienation made by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 is void and also for an injunction to restore the status of the Northern side wall of the disputed site.

(3.) Defendant no.1 resisted the suit. He admitted that he has produced the suit property under sale-deed executed by defendant no.2 He also submits that he has made several improvements in the suit property and spent sum of Rs.20,000/-. It is contended that defendant no.2 and deceased Narayandas were living jointly and the property was joint Hindu Property. Defendant no.2 was managing the affairs of the joint family and defendant no.2 sold the plots for legal necessity. It is also contended that defendant no.1 is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice.