AZEEZULLA SHERIFF ALIAS ANWAR PASHA Vs. BHABHUTHIMUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by plaintiffs 1 to 3 against the decree passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore in RA. Nos.150 and 160 of 1967, affirming the decree passed by the I Addl. I Munsiff, Bangalore in OS. No. 1373 of 1962.

(2.) The plaintiffs instituted the suit on the 26th of October, 1962 for declaration that the sale deed dt.17th September, 1962 executed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in favour of the defendant purportng to sell their share in the suit schedule properties is null and void and for an order directing the defendant to deliver the said document to plaintiffs 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs 1 and 2 have a share in the suit schedule properties, which they agreed to sell to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 1,500. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 exeouled a sale deed on the 17th of September, 1962 in favour of the defendant which has been produced in the case as Ext.P1. Though the defendant got the sale deed executed- representing that he would pay the amount of Rs.1,500 near the Sub-Registrar's Office he refused to pay the amount and insisted that the document should be registered in the first instance. Plaintiffs 1 & 2 having become aware of the fraudulent conduct of the defendant, came away from the office of the Sub-Registrar, but the sale deed remained with the defendant. Thereafter, plaintiffs 1 and 2 sold their share in the suit properties in favour of the 3rd plaintiff and executed sale deeds as per Exts.P2 and P3 on the 10|llth of October, 1962. These sale-deeds were registered on the 11th of October, 1962. As the defendant is trying to claim share in the suit schedule properties and has continued to remain in possession of the sale-deed dt.17th September, 1962, the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. He inter alin contended that plaintiffs 1 and 2 executed the sale deed on the 17th of September. 1962 in his favour, after due receipt of consideration of Rs. 1,500 and that he has not committed any fraud, as alleged by the plaintiffs. He further pleaded that plaintiffs 1 and 2 did not get the sale deed registered inspite of several requests, on the ground of some personal inconvenience. Subsequently, plaintiffs 1 and 2 gave a notice to the defendant putting forward a false and concocted story against the defendant. The defendant presented the sale deed dt.17th September, 1962 for registration before the Sub-Registrar on the 25th of October, 1962. As plaintiffs 1 and 2 did not appear before the Sub-Registrar and admit the execution of the sale deed, the Sub-Registrar, bv his order dt.17th May, 1963. refused to register the sale-deed dt.17th September, 1962. The defendant, therefore, took up the matter to the District Registrar who, by his order dt.19th August, 1964, directed the registration of the sale deed dt,17th September, 1962. In pursuance of the said direction of the District Registrar, the sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar on the 25th of August,1964. The registration actually took place during the pendency of the suit.