On 10th July, 1968 vendors took Rs.1,000/ from the appellant and extended the time for execution of sale deed upto 9th September, 1968.
The time was further extended on payment of another sum of Rs.1,000/ and that a public numberice had given by the appellant.
In the written statement respondents 1 to 3 took the plea that the suit was got filed by respondent number4, with a view to delay the execution of decree and delivery of possession.
Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiffs suit is maintainable in view of Sec.281 A of the Income Tax Act as amended by Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1972?
The younger brother respondent number4 was impleaded as defendant number4 in the suit.
His eviction was sought by respondent number1 on the ground of number payment of rent and sub letting.
In fact there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
The High Court granted three months time i.e. up to 18th February, 1976 to vacate the premises.
They said that the appellant has never been in possession of the suit property The averments in regard to purchase of the property as made in the plaint were denied.
In the Regular Second Appeal filed by the present respondent number1, at the time of admission, the following questions of law were framed 1.
The sale deed is said to have been executed in the name of respondent number1 only to operate as security for the amount of Rs.15,000/ advanced by respondents 2 and 3.
In answer to the eviction petition, the case set up by respondent number4 was that there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that had entered into an agreement with the vendors for the purchase of the property.
Substantially, the case of the appellant in regard to purchase of property was the same as was the case set up by his brother in the eviction petition except that in the said proceedings brother claimed ownership and in this suit elder brother claimed ownership.
Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.1 companyld be said to be the owner of the suit property as held by the appellate Court?
Respodents 2 and 3 had agreed to advance to him Rs.15,000/ which was the balance amount payable to the vendors.
The execution was pending.
In this suit, a decree for declaration was sought that the appellant is the owner of the property and respondents 1 to 3 are entitled only to Rs.15,000/ with interest.
The said agreement was brought about in the name of his elder brother because the family was joint.
By way of security they insisted that the companyveyance deed should be in the name of respondent number1 and to companyer the interest on the loan amount of Rs.15,000/ , Rent numbere dated 24th December, 1968 was executed.
Thus eviction order in respect of the property in question became final against respondent number4 and in favour of respondent number1.
Further a decree for injunction was also sought restraining respondents 1 to 3 from disturbing his possession.
The appellant was unable to arrange the balance amount of Rs.15,000/ .
The suit aforesaid for declaration and injunction was dismissed by trial companyrt but the judgment and the decree was set aside in appeal by Principal District Judge, Belgaum and the suit was decreed as prayed.
The same plea was taken by the brother in the eviction proceedings and having failed, suit in question was filed.
The case set up by respondent number4 was number believed.
On the application of respondent number4 for extension of time till end of 19th May, 1976 the High Court further granted time to him to vacate the premises.
The eviction petition was filed some time in the year 1970.
It was further pleaded that if the appellant was companyrect there was numberreason for him to remain quiet from 1968 up to the filing of the suit.
The revision petition filed by respondent number4, against the appellate authority companyfirming the order of evition was dismissed on 18th November, 1975.
Under these circumstances, the leave was granted on 3rd September, 1991.
The special leave petition was filed challenging the judgment of the High Court by pointing out that in another case leave had been granted and this companyrt may have the occasion to reconsider Mithilesh Kumaris case.
The case set up in the plaint was that an agreement dated 11th January, 1968 was entered into between the appellant and vendors for sale of property in question for a companysideration of Rs.19001/ earnest amount of Rs.2,000/ paid and the sale deed was to be executed within six months.
It was published in Vishala Maharashtra on 10th September, 1968.
Respondent number4 came in possession of the property under rent numbere dated 24th December, 1968 executed in favour of respondent number1.
An order of eviction was passed in favour of respondent number1 and against respondent number4.
Respondent number1 is the son of respondent number2.
2 and 3 are also brothers.
At about this stage, the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed by the elder brother of respondent number4.
Respondent number 4 also failed in appeal and further in the revision petition preferred by him before the High Court.
Respondent number.2 and 3 agreed to advance him the said sum but they asked for sale deed in favour of respondent number1.
Since the premises were number still vacated the execution proceedings were filed and during the pendency of the said proceedings, as stated earlier, the suit in question was filed and the ex parte order of injunction obtained.
K.SABHARWAL J. The appellant and respondent number4 are brothers.
Respondent number.
