665/ .
7, owner of the property, also filed a separate written statement.
7 executed a usufructuary mortgage in their favour as far back in the year 1957 and in pursuance thereof delivered the possession of the said property to them.
It is number disputed that the said sale deed was number registered.
The trial Court decided other issues in favour of the plaintiff but dismissed the suit on the ground of limitations.
In that view of the matter, the very basis of the defendant respondents case was knocked off.
52A/72.
The trial Court was of the view that the signature of Ramadhar on the sale deed is fraudulent.
It appears that after the sale deed was executed, there arose a dispute in regard to possession of the property, and proceeding under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure was taken between the parties.
Consequently, the suit was decreed.
It is against the said judgment the plaintiff appellant is in appeal before us.
After some time the plaintiff appellant herein filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute.
7 transferred the aforesaid property in favour of the plaintiff appellant herein by a registered sale deed for a companysideration of Rs.
It is also alleged that subsequently on 29.5.59, Ramadhar himself as well as on behalf of his brother, who was then a minor, executed sale deed in respect of the said property for a companysideration of Rs.
Aggrieved, defendant respondents 1 6 preferred an appeal before the fist appellate companyrt.
Respondent No.
The first appellate Court, without companysidering the question as to whether the signature of Ramadhar on the unregistered sale deed dated 29.5.59 was genuine or number, allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the decree of the trial Court.
Several issues were framed in the said suit and one of the issues was as to whether the sale deed dated 29.5.59 was executed by Ramadhar or number.
No appeal thereafter was preferred against the said decree.
1,200/ .
In the said suit, defendant respondents 1 6 filed written statement wherein they defended their possession on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 29.5.59.
Subsequently, respondent No.
Thereafter defendant respondent 1 6 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 29.5.59, which subsequently was registered as suit No.
N. Khare, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirming the judgment of the first appellate companyrt whereby the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are these It is the case of defendant respondents 1 6 that Ramadhar respondent No.
