JETHU Vs. DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of Sri Fateh Chand Bansal, District Judge, Bhilwara, dated 14 -7 -1986, dismissing the appeal against the judgment of Shri B. L. Gupta Munsif, Shahpura, dated 9 -7 -1981, decreeing the suit for possession and recovery of Rs. 250/ - as mesne profits. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for the recovery of possession and mesne profits against the defendant -appellant Jethu and defendant respondent No. 3 Ladulal with the allegations, in short, that the suit property was initially owned and possessed by the defendant -appellant Jethu, on 30 -8 -1962 he sold it to the defendant -respondent Ladulal, he took it on rent from Ladulal and on 31 -10 -1973, he (Ladulal) sold it to the plaintiff -respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Despite several demands and notice, the possession of the suit property has not been delivered by the defendant Jethu. The defendant Ladulal admits in his written statement that he purchased the suit property from the defendant Jethu in the year 1962, he sold it on 31 -10 -19 73 to the plaintiffs and possession was duly delivered to them. The defendant Jethu admits in his written statement that he executed the sale -deed on 30 -8 -1962 in favour of the defendant Ladulal. The remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. He has also averred that the sale was a sham transaction, the sale -deed was executed to save the suit property from his creditors he has always been in its occupation and possession as its owner, the suit is time barred and it deserves to be dismissed. After framing necessary issues and recording evidence of the parties which was produced by them, the learned Munsif held that the sale -deed was executed by the defendant Jethu after obtaining the entire amount of the consideration, the sale was not a sham transaction, no debt was outstanding against him when the sale -deed was executed, he is bound with it and the suit is within limitation. The learned District Judge affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff -respondents Nos. 1 and 2 duly supported the judgment under appeal.