BISWANATH NANDA Vs. MADHU SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF 's success in the trial Court having been reversed by the appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed mainly raising one short but interesting point for adjudication.

(2.) PLAINTIFF also described hereinafter as the appellant, filed a suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit properties recovery of possession and in the alternative, for recovery of consideration money of Rs. 1,000/ - on equitable grounds. The factual antecedents, as averred in the plaint, in which controversy arose as are follows ; Defendant, hereinafter also described as the respondent, for family necessity and to pay off debts, sold the suit house along with some paddy lands for a consideration of Rs. 1500/ - under a registered sale deed dated 21 -7 -1965, and delivered possession of both the suit house and paddy lands to the plaintiff after sale. But with his permission the defendant remaned in the suit house as a licensee oromising to give up possession to the plain - tiff after constructing; a residential house of his own, at a different plain. Such a permission was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant as both were in friendly terms. After some time, the defendant along. with his son - in -law purchased back the paddy lands on 15 -3 - 1987, and at that time also assurance was given to the plaintiff that the suit hose shall be vacated shortly. Unfortunately, subsequently attitude of the defendant changed and he did not give up possession of the house in spite of several demands and this necessitated filing of the suit, with prayer as aforesaid.

(3.) SIX issues were framed by the trial Court, issue Nos. 1,3 and 5 related to the question (a) whether the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the suit land ?, (b) whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the suit land ? and (c) whether the sale -deed dated 21 -7 -1965 was a fraudulent one ?. On evaluation of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and on consideration of the sale deed exhibited as Ext. 1, it was concluded that the same was executed for due consideration, and the plaintiff was entitled to relief as prayed for