BHARAT LAL Vs. KODAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment dated 14th August, 1976 of the Addl. District Judge, Dungarpur affirming the judgment and decree dated April 20, 1973 of the Civil Judge, Dungarpur dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for redemption.

(2.) ON April 6, 1948, Gautam and his mother Smt. Kesar Bai mortgaged with possession the suit house with Kodarlal for a sum of Rs. 2,000/ -. The mortgage was for 19 years. On the death of Kesar Bai, Gautam became the sole owner of the property. By an agreement Ex. A/1 executed on March 28, 1961 Gautam agreed to sell the house to Kodarlal for a sum of Rs. 6,100/ -and received a sum of Rs. 700/ - in advance at the time of execution of the agreement. Subsequently, however, Gautam also executed a sale deed on October 2, 1962 in favour of Ranchodlal for a sum of Rs. 4500/ -. Later, the sale deed was executed by Gautam in favour of Kodarlal on August 23, 1963. Ranchodlal filed a suit for redemption against Kodarlal on April 13, 1967. Kodarlal contested the suit and alleged that the suit house had already been agreed to be sold to him by the agreement dated March 28, 1961 and was later on sold by the sale -deed dated August 23, 1963. Ranchod Lal could not, therefore bring a suit against him.

(3.) THE District Judge while concurring with the conclusions arrived at by the Civil Judge had recorded the finding that the sale -deed Ex. 1 executed by Gautam in favour of Ranchodlal on October 2, 1962 was without consideration, that the agreement Ex. A/1 executed by Gautam in favour of Kodar Lal on March 28, 1961 was a genuine document and was duly proved, that Ranchodlal was aware of the sale -deed and existence of the agreement Ex. A/1 when he got the sale -deed executed in his favour and that the sale deed was got executed just to defeat the rights of Kodarlal which he got from Gautam by virtue of the agreement Ex. A/1. The learned District Judge held that the sale -deed Ex. A/6 in favour of Kodarlal was sequel to the agreement executed earlier on March 28, 1961 and, therefore, Ranchodlal could not derive any right or title in respect of the property which was already the subject matter of agreement to sell in favour of Kodarlal. The finding that Ex. A/1 agreement in favour of Kodarlal was a genuine document and was duly executed by Gautam on March 28, 1961 is a finding of fact. Similarly, the findings that the sale -deed Ex. 1 executed by Gautam in favour of Ranchodlal was executed to defeat the rights of Kodarlal under the earlier agreement and that Ranchod Lal was then aware of the existence of the agreement Ex A/1 are findings of fact. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show, how these findings are vitiated.