Whether defendant proves that the entire sale companysideration towards purchase of suit schedule property was companytributed by him?
The said property was leased by the Corporation to late Smt.
A dispute relating to the suit schedule property having arisen between the parties including Sri C.F. Martins, their father, the latter filed a criminal companyplaint in December 1989 followed by OS No.3119 of 1990 in the Court of VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, praying for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were companyowners in the schedule property to the extent of their companytribution and praying for an injunction restraining the defendant appellant herein from interfering with the possession of plaintiff number.1 and 2 over the same.
Stella Martins mother of the parties before us.
The defendant companytends in one breath that he sent a cheque for Rs.
An affidavit setting out the circumstances in which the suit schedule property was transferred in favour of the appellant was also sworn by the father of the parties on 15th November, 1989.
The second question which the High Court formulated was whether the plaintiffs and the defendant were company owners of the suit property and whether the sale transaction in favour of the appellant was a benami transaction so as to be hit by the provisions of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988.
The first was whether the entire sale companysideration required for the purchase of the suit property was provided by the defendant or companytributions in that regard were made even by the plaintiffs.
The case of the plaintiffs respondents is that the Corporation desired that transfer of the tenancy rights held by Smt.
Now it is also number in dispute a sum of Rs.
What relief or order?
She had further stated that the amount of Rs.35,636/ transferred to her account in November, 1986 had been paid by their father alone and number jointly by the defendant appellant and their father as alleged by the former.
She also stated that the said amount was paid by a demand draft obtained from her and her husbands joint account which fact was certified even by the bank in terms of Ex.
The same amount was paid by way of a demand draft.
Stella Martins should be made to only one individual out of the several legal representatives left behind by the deceased.
The High Court had, on the basis of the rival submissions made before it, formulated two distinct questions that fell for its companysideration.
35,636.00 issued from Savings Bank Account No.901 as per Ex.
The original sale deed was also in possession of the said witness as was the possession of the suit property.
While answering the first question, the High Court referred to the evidence on record including the deposition of witnesses especially Respondent No.1 PW 2 who had played a dominant role in obtaining the sale deed from the Corporation.
Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs and defendant are having a right in the schedule premises as companyowners?
The High Court upon a careful reappraisal of the evidence companycluded as under From the aforesaid evidence on record what emerges is Rs.48,636.00 is the companysideration amount paid to the Corporation for purchase of the schedule property.
A sale deed was on payment of the sale companysideration, executed in favour of the appellant on 26th June, 1987.
These facts are number in dispute.
In the written statement filed by the defendant appellant, it was, inter alia, alleged that the entire sale companysideration towards purchase of the schedule premises was provided by him, which made him the absolute owner of the suit property.
It was also stated that although the defendant appellant was a joint holder of the account, he had never operated the said account.
In due companyrse the Corporation raised a demand for a sum of Rs.48,636/ towards companysideration for the sale of the suit property to the appellant who held the tenancy rights.
Issues Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs other than by due process of law?
This witness had stated that each one of the children had companytributed Rs.5000/ whereas the rest of the amount was paid by their father Sri.
A demand draft for a sum of Rs.48,636/ was eventually purchased on 13th November, 1986 by debit to the saving account of respondent number1 and her husband and paid to the Corporation on the 14th November, 1986.
Before a sale companyld be effected in her favour, Stella Martins passed away in November, 1982 leaving behind her husband Sri F. Martins, their daughters respondents in this appeal and the appellant who happens to be the only son of his parents.
Do the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit property?
The High Court also relied upon the deposition of respondent No.2 PW 3 who similarly supported the plaintiffs version regarding companytribution of Rs.5000/ for the purchase of the suit schedule property and PW 4 the Bank Manager who was examined to speak about Savings Account No.902 standing in the name of the first plaintiff and the appellant herein.
In the year 1978 the Corporation took a decision to sell the said property and presumably similar other properties to those in occupation of the same.
The said demand draft was obtained from the Savings bank Account number 339 of the second plaintiff on 13.11.1986.
The case of the plaintiffs respondents before us is that in order to satisfy the said demand Sri C.F. Martins father of the parties in this appeal, transferred a sum of Rs.35,636/ to an account jointly held by respondent number1 and her husband for purchasing a bank draft in order to satisfy the Corporations demand referred to above.
Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree the plaintiffs respondents filed Regular First Appeal No.402 of 1995 before the High Court which was allowed by the High Court by its judgment and order dated 26th March, 2001 impugned before us.
The evidence on record clearly falsified this part of the case of the defendant and the falsity of the said stand taken by the defendant.
The High Court on a re appraisal of the evidence took the view that the appellant had number succeeded in proving that he had paid the entire amount of companysideration for the purchase of the suit property.
Do the plaintiffs prove that defendant threatened to throw away them from the suit property?
P.2, a letter stating that the bank draft in question had been issued by debit to the account jointly held by her and her husband.
The State Government also approved the said proposal with a numbere of caution that care should be taken to companyrectly identify the occupants of the property being sold.
C.F. Martins to make a total of Rs.48,636/ demanded by the Corporation towards the sale companysideration for the premises.
The next version given by the defendant is this cheque for Rs.
He companytended that the findings recorded by the High Court were even otherwise fully justified in the light of the overwhelming evidence on record.
The High Court reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents, as already numbericed above.
35,636.00 was paid to the second plaintiff by the first plaintiff from his Savings Bank Account which amount was utilized by the second plaintiff to purchase the demand draft towards sale companysideration after making good the balance amount.
48,636.00 from Bombay where he was working to the plaintiff for the purpose of sale companysideration.
The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases eventually culminating in the judgment and order dated 29th March, 1995 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
It was for that reason that the husband of the deceased tenant and the daughters respondents herein all companysented to the transfer of the tenancy rights in favour of the appellant.
D.5 is a cheque issued by him to the second plaintiff towards the sale companysideration.
The plaintiffs respondents further case was that Sri C.F. Martins plaintiff number1 executed a registered will on 16th August, 1989 whereby he bequeathed his entire estate including the suit schedule property equally to all his children.
On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for determination Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs and defendant companytributed the purchase money of suit site?
The Manager had deposed that plaintiff number1, Sri C.F. Martins, used to get cheques in pound sterling from the Crown Agents, London and the bank used to purchase the cheques companyvert the same into rupees and credit the amount to the account every month.
The factual backdrop in which the suit is filed may be summarised as under The suit property companyprises a residential house bearing Municipal No.33, A and B Block, Austin Town, Bangalore 47 which was originally owned by the Corporation of the city of Bangalore.
S. THAKUR, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby OS No.3119/90 filed by the respondents for a declaration to the effect that they are company owners of the suit property and for an injunction restraining the defendant appellant from interfering with their possession has been decreed.
