to the plaintiff?
I was personally present at the time of registration of this Sale Deed.
The possession of the property had never been handed over to the appellant.
In this matter the true fact is such that the firm of the plaintiff namely M s. Ghevarchand Bhaniram Co. and its partners are doing the business of money lending.
equivalent to 4451.53 sq.
He furthermore admitted that his firm had business relations with Ghevarchand Bhaniram Co. He moreover stated I have been shown Sale deed in the plaint.
He had also been paying income tax individually.
What was in dispute was the character of his possession.
On the said companytention, appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession which was marked as Special Suit No.330 of 1987 praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs That it be declared that the Defendant has numberright, title or interest of any nature whatsoever in respect of the property, viz.,
Out of such other rights plaintiffs does number get any right to the property.
An appeal was preferred by the appellant thereagainst.
Indisputably, a deed of sale was executed by the father of the respondent in favour of Vimal Chand Ghevar Chand Jain Co., a partnership firm, on or about 29.6.1974.
One of the issues, as numbericed hereinbefore, framed is as to whether the plaintiff purchased the property.
At that time, false Sale deed was produced which plaintiffs have stated as registered.
Respondent himself was a witness to the said deed of sale.
On the said findings, the suit was dismissed.
The fact is that plaintiffs firm M s. Ghevarchand Bhaniram and Co. and its partners carry the business of money lending.
Books of account have been maintained by the firm regularly.
Account of this transaction was privately kept by me.
Besides this, plaintiffs are doing various other business.
At that time me and my father were residing in Mumbai.
There were and there are many money lending transactions between the said firms and defendants father.
At that time plaintiffs have accepted many many things which are stated here.
It was held that the appellants have failed to prove that the suit property was purchased by them by reason of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 29.6.1978.
After arranging many things various photos have been taken.
Therefore, said so called sale deed and its companytents are number admitted to defendant and the suit filed on its basis cannot be maintained plaintiffs suit be dismissed.
being the plot of land admeasuring one acre four gunthas or thereabouts, that is 5,324 sq.
He also denied that he had attested the document.
There other firm also carries the same business of money lending.
For the sake of companyvenience, we have registered the sale deed in Mumbai, since me, my father and Shri Ghevarchand Seth were staying in Mumbai.
This deed bears my signature as a witness.
Further, order of revenue authorities is illegal, and is out of the law and out of their rights of making order and such order is a nullity.
The First Appellate Court, however, had a duty to properly appreciate the evidence in the light of the pleadings of the parties.
After that I have received the title.
His witnesses merely proved his possession.
We may numberice some of the statements made therein The title of the suit property was with my Advocate.
I have in my written statement denied plaintiffs claim of ownership and have claimed that said sale deed is sham and without effect and plaintiffs do number get any ownership rights because of the said sale deed.
The learned Trial Judge, inter alia, framed the following issues Does plaintiff prove that was In affirmative registered as M s Kewalchand Baniram sons Does the plaintiff prove that In Negative he purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 29.6.78 as alleged?
Therefore, the father of the defendant had taken the amount of Rs.50,000/ Fifty Thousand Rupees as a loan from the said firm and its companysharers.
The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal preferred thereagainst, inter alia, opining It is true that initially such defence was number raised in the written statement, however, in the first appeal the amendment of the pleadings was sought and it was allowed by the companyrt and by way of the amendment the respondent defendant raised such companytentions.
Plaintiffs loan amount was repaid from time to time and said sale deed was executed as a document for security for the money lending transaction and the plaintiff or his firm has number never acquired any ownership rights because of the said sale deed and has number acquired actual possession.
Plaintiffs have never objected to that.
Before the learned Trial Judge, the defendant respondent did number examine himself.
In this way the said sale deed is mortgaged as the money lender transaction and through it the plaintiff or its firm had number obtained any ownership and they did number obtained its actual possession.
There is numberintention of the implementation of that sale deed and never and the same was number in the mind of both the persons plaintiff and defendant and never it in their minds at all.
Respondent examined himself thereafter.
The defendant do deposit the said amount or pay the same to the plaintiffs immediately failing with the plaintiff can recover it through the companyrt.
He, inter alia, by way of an affidavit, stated Appellant plaintiffs have filed the present suit on the sale deed dated 29/6/1978 and plaintiff claim to have owner by means of the said sale deed and claim that the respondent are licensee and the suit is filed for obtaining possession from respondents.
I do number remember that at time of registration, Sub Registrar had told my father about the Deed of sale of property.
The returning back of the payment of loan is done in time to time.
The said deed of sale was registered at Mumbai.
Plaintiffs have applied for title name in record of rights after filing the suit and thus various wrongs have been companymitted.
In respect to the sale deed dated 29.6.1978 present respondent states that said sale deed is sham and was never given effect to and the plaintiff did number and presently do number acquire any ownership rights by the said sale deed and respective fathers of the plaintiff and the respondent had numbersuch intention.
Did he companytinue to possess the godown as owner thereof or on the basis of leave and licence was the question, which was number companysidered in its proper perspective by any of the three companyrts below.
My father was very old.
On or about 1.7.1978, the possession of the said property was allegedly handed over to the father of the respondent as a licensee at an agreed licence fee of Rs.1,257.50 per month.
In his cross examination, however, he accepted that his firm named Eknath Gondiram Jadoo was an income tax payee from 1954 55.
It was opined that the circumstantial evidences show that the sale deed was executed only by way of a money lending transaction.
I was never the owner number having possession after this suit.
During the pendency of the said appeal, the written statement was amended by inserting paragraph 25A therein which reads as under 25A Along with the said sale deed of the said dated 29/6/1978 this defendant is saying this also that this sale deed is numberinal and of the bogus nature that was never implemented and through it the plaintiff had never got any type of ownership and he is number getting it and the same was number in the mind of the father of plaintiff and defendant and never he was number keeping this in his mind.
Plaintiffs have arranged to pay taxes of the suit property, and paid the taxes of Saikheda on 11.1.88 and 23.1.88 and received the receipt.
He accepted his signature in the cheque having been issued as proprietor of his firm.
Plaintiffs have companylected a lot of information on about me.
While doing so, it was required to pose unto itself the companyrect questions.
The deed of sale dated 29.6.1978 was a registered one.
Said firm had numberreason to purchase the property at Saikheda.
And according to it the possession is number given and never possession is taken.
His other firms also doing the money lending business.
Does plaintiff prove that the In negative defendant is licensee and that he was paying the storage charges Rs.1257.50 ps.
The possession of the property was never given to the appellant.
The said partnership firm was dissolved pursuant whereto the appellant became the owner of the said property.
Plaintiffs have pressurized my servants and given them attraction of money and succeeded obtaining various xerox companyies of some papers.
The order of allowing the amendment was number challenged by the appellant in further proceedings.
Therefore, the companytents written in the said companytents written in the said sale deed are number admitted by the defendant and he is number accepted it and before it the suit which is brought by the plaintiff cannot be maintained.
And the mortgage of the said amount is given in writing the said sale deed at Bombay by the father of the defendant.
The fact that the respondents father was put in possession with effect from 1.7.1978 was in dispute.
Said sale deed is without any legal effect and is sham document in the nature of security for money lending.
Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff should be cancelled.
Revenue authorities have ordered to mention plaintiffs names in the companyumn of other rights.
Because of such order plaintiffs does number get any rights and therefore plaintiffs suit is wrong number tenable.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
He even did number examine himself before the learned Trial Judge.
The cashier accepting the tax does number have a responsibility of inquiring that who is paying the tax and is been never inquired Plaintiffs have been recorded in cross examination at the time of making application from title names in record of rights at Saykheda.
Plaintiff is the appellant before us.
The said godowns were numberd as Grampanchayat No.753 to 761.
It was never meant to be given effect to and is number presently meant to be given effect to and accordingly possession was number transferred and is number transferred.
As defendants father was in need of money he had borrowed as a loan a sum of Rs.50,000/ from said firm and its partners and defendants father had executed the said so called sale deed dated 29.6.1978 as a security for the said loan amount.
The learned Trial Court held that Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act has numberapplication.
Father of the respondent was owner of four godowns and the land surrounding them admeasuring 1 acre and 4 guntas being Survey No.462, situated at Village Saikheda, Taluka Niphad, District Nasik.
There is a necessity of the money amount to the father of the defendant.
The Firm and its partners and their other firm and the father of the defendant in between them many transactions dealings was taken place and number it is also inexistence.
There was numberreason to purchase the property by the said firm afsiya Kheda and number at all.
As the plaintiff firm and its partners have numberlicense for money lending business they have obtained the said so called sale deed from defendants father at Mumbai.
