SHASHIKANT HARIBHAU BANDEWAR Vs. BHALCHANDRA HARIBHAU BANDEWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the case at hand, I am required to answer;

(2.) The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as under and I will refer the parties by their original nomenclature.

(3.) It is the plaintif's case, that the suit property (a) was purchased by him from one, Raoji Sakore for the consideration of Rs.1,000/- by registered sale-deed dated 25th February, 1969 ("first sale-deed" for short) with a view to construct building thereon. He thus, got the plans sanctioned from the local authority and started constructing the building in 1969 itself. The plaintif was running short of funds and therefore requested his brother (defendant) to help him out. His brother was a Medical Officer, in Zilla Parishad, at Solapur. He agreed to lend money subject to condition that the plaintif would execute the sale-deed of the suit property described in para-(a) in his favour, to enable him to secure loan from the Life Insurance Corporation. The plaintif thus executed sale-deed on 3rd February, 1975 in favour of his brother for consideration of Rs.1,000/-; however, it was agreed that the same shall not be acted upon. Thereafter, the plaintif appointed M/s. Shilp Gruha Rachana Prakalp a Contractor for constructing the building under the supervision of Engineer, Mr. Phadke. At the relevant point of time, the plaintif was working at Pune with M/s. Rustom Bay Company and his brother-the defendant, was working as Medical Officer in the Zilla Parishad at Solapur. The plaintif would plead that, his brother advanced him Rs.55,000/- to him from time to time which he repaid in installments either in cash or in cheque. He would further plead and contend that, he inducted tenants in the suit property and entered into tenancy agreements with them. It is the plaintif's case that, he was collecting rent as a owner of the suit property consisting of land and two storeyed building constructed thereon. In support thereof, he has produced the tenancy agreements and bunch of rent receipts. He would further contend that, eviction suit was filed by him against one of the tenants for recovery of possession and the decree was passed in his favour. In the circumstances, he requested his brother to execute a deed of reconveyance of the suit property in his favour. But since he refused to do so, he filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune in February, 1988, seeking relief as to declare, that the saledeed dated 3.2.1975 was never intended to be acted upon as it was executed in the form of collateral security for the loan of Rs.55,000/- advanced to him by his brother and for such consequential reliefs.