NASPURI DHARMAIAH AND ANOTHER Vs. KOTA VEERAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellants herein for declaration that they are the exclusive owners of the house described in the plaint schedule and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and to direct the Municipality to effect the mutation in the registers. The suit and the appeal thereon were dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

(2.) The appellants-plaintiffs claim to have purchased the suit house from the defendant in the year 1978. A xerox copy of the unregistered sale-deed dated 15-4.1978 purportedly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs was produced before the trial Court. It was alleged that pursuant to the said sale, the appellants-plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the house since the year 1978. It is also alleged that the defendant was interfering with their possession and hence the suit was filed. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the factum of sale and acknowledging that the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners of the schedule property. He expressed no objection for passing the decree as prayed for.

(3.) The Courts below declined to grant any relief on the ground that there was nothing to show that the title passed from the defendants to the plaintiffs under the purported sale deed Ex. A- 1 or by reason of adverse possession. No proof of possession in the form of tax receipts or any other evidence was filed. There was nothing to show that the defendant interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs. The original of the sale-deed said to have been executed in the year 1978, was not produced. The explanation given is that the original was not traceable. The lower Appellate Court states that even the Xerox copy was taken return of by the plaintiffs. The appellants Counsel stated before the lower Appellate Court that even the Xerox copy was lost. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, doubted the existence of the original sale-deed. The Municipality, against whom also the relief was sought for, is not made a party. The lower Appellate Court commented that the suit is filed with a view to avoid the stamp duty and registration charges which has the effect of defrauding the State of the revenue due to it.