1 Dagaduba, who was the owner of the suit properties sold the same to the plaintiffs on January 12, 1952 but some of the defendants had trespassed on those properties and hence they were companystrained to file the suit.
In Order to prove the destruction of the book maintained in the registration office, wherein companyies of the registered deeds were maintained, the plaintiffs examined P.W. 7, Syed Ahmedulla to support that case.
That evidence of his was number challenged in crossexamination.
1, a companyy of Ferist No.
The High Court reversed the decree of the first appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court.
He also admitted that there was a partition in his family but his case was that as a result of that partition the suit properties fell to his share and that he was in possession of the same.
The said sale deed is said to have been executed in the year 1335 F. He deposed that the Bahi of 1335 F. had been destroyed in the police action.
In appeal the learned District Judge held that the suit properties belonged to the joint family of defendants 1 and 2 and that it had never been partitioned.
The vendor is the first defendant and the vendees are the plaintiffs.
But later he changed that version and admitted that he sold the suit properties to the plaintiffs.
It shows that the document executed was a sale deed.
Therefore it was number open to the first appellate Court to companysider whether the deed in question was invalid on the ground that it was obtained by misrepresentation.
The trial Court decided both these questions in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the plaintiffs suit.
The trial Court came to the companyclusion that the said deed was executed by the second defendant.
The suit was filed on February, 14, 1953.
The second defendant admitted that the suit properties originally belonged to his family.
His evidence has been accepted both by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court.
Both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have rejected that plea.
On the other hand, the first appellate Court held that the same was obtained in misrepresentation.
That exhibit reads An Extract re registration of Documents.
No issue as to whether the said deed was obtained by misrepresentation was raised.
P.W. 7 also proved Ex.
In our opinion the learned appellate Judge erred in thinking that P.W. 7 was number companypetent witness to speak to the destruction of the Bahis.
He denied that his brother had any right to alienate the suit properties or in fact he had alienated the same.
No plea of misrepresentation was taken in the written statement.
He further came to the companyclusion that the sale put forward by the plaintiffs has number been established.
The first appellate Court also did number accept the companytention of the second defendant that he did number execute that deed.
Volume One of 1355F 9.
Thereafter this appeal has been brought after obtaining special leave.
Date of registration 20 th Khurdad 1355F That exhibit shows the names of the companycerned parties, the nature of the document and description of the properties dealt with.
On the other hand in his crossexamination, it was brought out that many other Bahis pertaining to the other sale deeds were also destroyed.
The only plea put forward by the second defendant was that the deed was a forgery.
As seen earlier both the first defendant as well as the second defendant had pleaded that there was a partition in the family.
Curiously enough the first appellate Court thought that the plaintiff should have produced better evidence for the proof of the destruction of the Bahis and the witness in question was number a companypetent witness to speak to the destruction of the records in question.
The description of the properties shown therein tallies with the suit properties.
2 giving the extract of a sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs.
The trial Court accepted his evidence.
He was the Kabala Navis of the registration office in which the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff is said to have been registered.
In the Court of the Munsif Tuljapur Translation of a companyy of the Extract in Urdu .
