RAJ LINGAM Vs. SOMANNA DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. This appeal on his behalf arises out of O. S 30/1 of 1954, suit instituted by the respondent Somanna for possession of one third share in S. No. 157 situated in the northern side or in the alternative for the recovery of O S Rs 685 being the consideration of the real sale thereof.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that he sold one-third share in S No. 157 to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 685 (O. S.). The sale-deed was kept with one Minka Rajanna, as the purchase amount was not paid to him, with instructions that as soon as the purchase amount was paid, the sale-deed should be handed over to the defendant. The defendant did not pay the amount, but somehow managed to get the sale-deed from Minka Rajanna and dispossessed the plaintiff in 1954. The defendant in his written statement admitting the sale transaction, pleaded that he said the consideration and got possession of the land from the plaintiff. He also stated that the sale deed could not be registered, because permission of the Taluqdar was not obtained. He, however, denied that he ever dispossessed the plaintiff, and stated that he was in possession as purchaser.

(3.) The trial Court, after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, found that the consideration was not paid. He also found that possession was given to the defendant in pursuance of the sale-deed. Holding so, he gave a decree to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. (O. S.) 685 equivalent to I. G. Rs. 587-2-4, with a further direction that in case the defendant failed to pay the amount, the plaintiff would be entitled to get back possession of the suit land. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the defendant went in appeal. the plaintiff, it appears, did not file any cross-objections. The appellate Court agreed with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the second appeal.