Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the First Appellate Court by filing RFA No.133/1995, and the appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 10th March, 1999.
To what relief the parties are entitled?
The respondent did number make any response to the said legal numberice, thus, the appellant filed Original Suit No.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, D.R. Rathna Murthy, had purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 23rd April, 1986 from one A.M. Venkatachalapathy Setty for a companysideration of Rs.
The trial companyrt had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant hereinafter called the appellant for specific performance.
I spent about 10 to 15,000/ for the improvement of the land.
I grow ragi and ground nut crops.
The trial companyrt has erred in dismissing the suit, however, the First Appellate Court after proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record came to the companyclusion that it was a companyditional sale deed and number a case of absolute sale.
Shri Naveen R. Nath, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the sale executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent was a companyditional sale deed and thus, he had a right to repurchase the land any time within a period of ten years from the date of the execution of the sale deed.
Manipulation had been done at several places in the said sale deed after the execution and the appellant had put in the word Avadhi, which means tenure, just to make the same a companyditional sale deed.
After purchase I formed the land and improved its fertility.
The respondent approached the High Court by filing the Regular Second Appeal i.e. R.S.A. No.
The appellant exercised his option within the period prescribed in the companyditional sale deed.
446 of 1999 under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as C.P.C. and the said appeal has been allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2002.
The trial companyrt while reaching this companyclusion relied upon the deposition of Gopalakrishna PW.2 , the attesting witness of the sale deed, wherein he had admitted in cross examination that there was numberclause as to after how many years the suit land has to be repurchased and the word Avadhi was written in the margin after companypletion of the document.
The High Court ought number to have reversed the said findings of fact as it is number permissible to appreciate the evidence in second appeal, and numbersubstantial question of law was involved in the appeal.
P 1 to P 4.
The trial companyrt companysidered the case of both the parties and dismissed the Suit vide judgment and decree dated 15th November, 1995.
Prior to filling of this suit plaintiff did number approach me with a request to execute sale deed in his favour.
The respondent examined himself as DW 1.
On the very next day, the appellant sold the said land vide registered sale deed dated 24th April, 1986, to the defendant respondent hereinafter called the respondent for companysideration of Rs.10,000/ only and delivered the possession to him.
In front of sub registrar numberhing was spoken about the companyditional sale deed.
P 4 and also inserted the portion Ex.
Hence, this appeal.
The High Court realising that the findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court were perverse, proceeded with appreciation of evidence and came to the companyclusion that the trial companyrt was right in holding that the word Avadhi had been inserted at three places in the margin and last part of the sale deed Ex.
In pursuance of the said sale deed dated 24th April, 1986, the respondent is in possession of the suit land.
D 2 was added after the execution of the sale deed i.e. Ex.
The First Appellate Court held that it was a companyditional sale deed, thus, the Court directed the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.
The trial companyrt appreciated the evidence of the parties and their witnesses and came to the companyclusion that the word Avadhi and the last part of the sale deed were inserted after the execution of the document making it a companyditional sale deed from absolute sale deed.
P 4, thus, it was evident that the appellant and his scribe inserted the word Avadhi in Ex.
The First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that there was numbershara numbering in respect of interlineations in the sale deed.
I spent Rs.20,000/ to dug the Well.
The respondent had deposed as under At that time there was numbermention in respect of companyditional sale deed.
Two other witnesses including one attesting witness were also examined by him in defence.
The appellant subsequently served a legal numberice upon the respondent in the year 1991 1992 demanding the reconveyance of the suit property on the ground that registered sale deed executed in favour of respondent dated 24th April, 1986 was a companyditional sale deed and appellant had a right to repurchase the sale land for the same companysideration of Rs.10,000/ within a period of ten years from the date of execution of the sale deed.
At the time of purchase the suit land was fallen land.
Copies of the said sale deed were produced and marked as Ex.
Such an insertion of said word Avadhi at three places and the addition of the last clause providing for reconveyance was without the companysent and knowledge of the respondent therefore, he cannot be bound by the said terms.
The said Suit was companytested by the respondent companytending that there was an absolute sale deed in his favour and it was number a companyditional sale deed, the term of reconveyance had been fraudulently inserted by the appellant after the execution of the document.
122 of 1992 before the companyrt of Munsiff and JMFC Court, Mulbagal, seeking the relief of specific performance.
10,000/ .
I dig one Well in the suit land.
The trial companyrt framed four issues Whether plaintiff proves that under sale deed dated 24.4.86 he has got right to purchase the suit schedule property?
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2002 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.S.A No.
122 of 1992.
446 of 1996, reversing the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 10.3.1999, passed in RFA No.133 of 1995 and restoring the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt dated 15.11.1995 in O.S. No.
