SIDLINGAPPA BIN GANESHAPPA Vs. HIRASA BIN TUKASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises on this appeal is, whether a defendant can plead his own fraud as an effective answer to a claim to immoveable property conveyed by him to a benamidar.

(2.) Hirasa, the 2nd defendant, on May the 24th, 1890, executed in favour of one Hanmantsa a sale-deed of the property in suit. On the 3 of March 1892 Hanmantsa executed in favour of the plaintiffs father a sale-deed of the same property.

(3.) In 1899 the property was attached in execution of a money decree passed against Hirasa, but on an application presented by the plaintiffs father the attachment was raised in deference to the title apparently created by the sale deeds.