MADEGOWDA Vs. MADEGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the divergent findings of the Courts below. Parties to this appeal will be referred to by the ranks they had in the trial Court.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal may be briefly stated as follows: The appellant-plaintiff was the son of the maternal nephew of Defendant- 1. He lost his parents in his child-hood. He first lost his father and some years thereafter his mother. When he came of age, he made enquiries regarding the properties left by his father and learnt that the suit property was one of such properties which was in the possession of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff desired that he be put in possession of the property but was informed that he had no right in the suit property as the same had been sold by him by a registered sale deed to Defendant-1 (Respondent-1) in this Court) . Hearing the same, the plaintiff was shocked and surprised and on further enquiries learnt that indeed there was a sale deed dated 20-1-1958 purporting to be the sale deed under which Defendant-1 had obtained title to the suit property.

(3.) The plaintiff further averred that the sale deed was false, void and not binding on the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was born on 3-4-1942 and in support of that assertion peoduced a horoscope along with the plaint. Therefore, it was asserted by him that the sale deed was void in as much as he was a minor on the date borne by the sale deed in question. He further averred in the plaint that the 1st defendant had played fraud and practiced undue influence on the plaintiff. It was stated by him that the 1st defendant took the plaintiff's thumb mark on some document representing that that was connected with some property of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff had not received any consideration under the sale deed; that the suit property was worth nearly Rs. 10,000 while the sale consideration mentioned was only Rs. 2,750; that he did not admit the averments in the sale deed of January 20, 1958; that the alleged sale deed was false and therefore he was not bound by the same and in those circumstances he was entitled to a decree for possession of the suit properties as well as for setting aside the sale deed. The other averments in the plaint ase not necessary to be recited here.