BAIJNATH PRASAD Vs. BADRUL HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Substituted appellants are heirs and legal representatives of the original appellant, Kailash Prasad. The sole respondent filed the suit seeking partition of the property in question. In the suit it was contended that by a registered sale deed dated 28th July, 1967, the plaintiff has purchased 14 annas share in the property in question. It was stated that the remaining two annas share in the property was purchased by the defendant. It was pleaded that on failure to amicably partition the property, the plaintiff has filed the , suit. In the written statement the defendant contended that he is the 16 annas owner of the suit property by purchase effected by registered sale deed dated 28th July, 1967. It was stated in the written statement that before the sale deed was executed an agreement for sale was made with the vendor and the defendant and after expiry of the time to complete the transaction, by yet another agreement the time to complete the transaction was extended. It was stated that the plaintiff was known to the defendant and, in fact, the defendant has sold his house to the plaintiff and that taking advantage of the simplicity of the defendant, the plaintiff has got his name inserted in the sale deed.

(3.) At the trial, amongst others, two important issues were raised, i.e., did the plaintiff purchase 14 annas share in the suit property, and did the defendant acquire 16 annas share in the suit property. In order to prove that the plaintiff has purchased 14 annas share in the suit property, a registered sale deed executed by the vendor on 28th July, 1967 and registered on 29th July, 1967 was tendered by the plaintiff. The defendant though tendered in evidence the agreements, but could not bring on record any sale deed either dated 28th July, 1967, or executed on any other date suggesting sale of 16 annas of the suit property in favour of the defendant. The registered sale deed dated 28th July, 1967, as tendered in evidence by the plaintiff was accepted by the defendant. The signature of the vendor contained in the said sale deed was not disputed by the defendant. He purported to lead evidence to suggest that instead of the name of the plaintiff as 14 annas purchaser of the property in question in the said deed, the name of the defendant ought to have been inserted therein as the purchaser of 16 annas share. It was contended that the stamp papers upon which the sale deed was written were purchased in the name of the defendant. It was contented that the original agreement for sale was entered solely by the defendant. It was contended that the plaintiff did not have adequate means to finance the subject purchase. It was contended that the scribe upon whom the defendant had faith, who was instrumental in writing the agreement for sale having died, another scribe was brought in by the plaintiff to write the subject sale deed, and after purchase of the property the defendant was in exclusive possession of the entire property, created tenancy, constructed a small Mandir and paid rates and taxes to the Municipality. It was thus contended that the said state of affairs would amply demonstrate that instead of the name of the plaintiff as 14 annas owner of the property in question, in the said sale deed it ought to have been recorded that the defendant is the 16 annas share holder of the property in question.