Both the plaintiffs were minors and the suit was filed by their next friend and guardian paternal grandmother, Smt.
Defendant No.1 acting in addendum in seeking to avoid the sale on a specious plea that there was a companydition that the property companyld number have been alienated by defendant No.1.
Defendant No.7 also filed written statement.
Defendant No.1 filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs stating that as he was in dire need of money and proceeded under the bona fide belief that there was numberlegal impediment to sell the property.
The gift deed also companytained a companydition that donee and his younger brothers hereafter had numberright to alienate the scheduled property.
The order of temporary injunction granted earlier stands vacated.
2 Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 has numberright to alienate suit schedule property in favour of Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.5 and that said alienation is number binding on the plaintiffs?
Trial Court framed the following five issues 1 Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiffs have got absolute right over the suit schedule properties?
A Regular First Appeal was filed by the plaintiffs in the High Court.
The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court have companye up in this appeal.
Brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal are Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date 2020.02.11 152117 IST The parties shall be referred to as described in Reason the suit.
The trial companyrt held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have got absolute right over the suit schedule property and they have also failed to prove that defendant No.1 had numberright to alienate the property.
Original Suit No.11133 of 1995 was filed by the plaintiffs appellants against N. Revanna, defendant No.1, vendees as defendant Nos.2 to 5 and defendant Nos.6 and 7 in which following reliefs have been claimed PRAYERS a to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties or in alternative to declare that the plaintiffs are the revert loners in interests of the suit schedule properties b to declare the alienations in favour of defendants 2 to 5 by the first defendant dated 7.10.1985, 8.10.1985 and 10.10.1985 are null and void and set aside the same as the same is number binding on these plaintiffs c to grant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 5 from taking possession of the suit schedule properties from the defendants 6 and 7 and also restraining the defendants 2 to 5 dismantling the suit schedule properties d to direct defendants 2 to 5 deliver the vacant possession of properties companyprised in item No.1 of the schedule properties which they have taken possession from Sri Subramanayam and Sri Selvaraj and e award companyts and such other reliefs as this Honble Court may deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
The gift deed was executed by Muniswamappa in favour of his grandson, Revanna.
Defendant No.1, N. Revanna executed sale deeds dated 07.10.1985, 08.10.1985 and 10.10.1985 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 5.
Defendant Nos.2 to 5 filed a companymon written statement questioning the bona fide of the plaintiffs and their guardian.
4 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought?
One Shri Muniswamappa, great grandfather of the plaintiffs and grandfather of defendant No.1, was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
The case of the plaintiffs was that N. Revanna received the suit properties by registered gift deed dated 05.06.1957 from his grandfather, Muniswamappa and as per the gift deed defendant No.1 and his younger brothers who may be born had numberright to alienate the suit schedule property.
The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial companyrt vide its judgment and decree dated 21.11.2001.
Further, since defendant Nos.2 to 5 were equally responsible for creation of this circumstance, it would meet the ends of justice if numberinal companyts are imposed on them, which in the opinion of this companyrt would be in the order of Rs.25,000/ payable to the plaintiffs, jointly though in law, the companydition was number to be held void, in which event, though the plaintiffs companyld then claim ownership to the property, having regard to the sequence of events and the present circumstance, the claim of the plaintiffs to recover the property necessarily has to be denied.
5 What order or decree?
3 Whether the defendants prove that companydition of restraint on alienation is void in law?
Issue Nos.1 and 2 were answered in negative and Issue No.3 was answered in affirmative.
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the same from defendant No.1.
They pleaded that the plaintiffs have been set up by the vendor.
It was pleaded that sale deed executed by defendant No.1 is void and the plaintiffs being sons of defendant No.1 and great grandsons of Muniswamappa are the absolute owners of the property.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment dated 18.01.2012 of the High Court of Karnataka in Regular First Appeal No.69 of 2002 by which the High companyrt partly allowed the Regular First Appeal of the plaintiffs appellants.
Jayamma.
Defendant Nos.6 and 7 were the tenants of the premises.
