The trial Court also held that the companypromise deed, Ex.
This suit, decreed by the trial Court, was ultimately dismissed by the High Court on appeal on the finding that Sripadas vendors were permanent tenants.
25,000/ .
The circumstances alleged by the defendants as suspicious are mainly as follows.
On March,13 1951 Sripada executed a sale deed Ex.
1,25,000/ .
D 13 to sell 5575 square yards out of the disputed property to defendants 2 and 3 for Rs.
16,725/ .
57,000/ .
D 14 in pursuance of the agreement to sell Ex.
The trial Court held that the will set up by the plaintiff was genuine but the testator was number the owner of the property bequeathed as he had sold it to the father of defendants 5 and 6, however, the entire companysideration number having been paid, the testator had a beneficial interest in the property by way of unpaid vendors lien, to which right the plaintiff had succeeded by virtue of the will.
The mortgage deed was also registered on May 16 and on the same day Sripada entered into an agreement Ex.
It was companytended that the will was wholly unnatural and many of the recitals therein were false.
D 2 purporting to companyvey the property in suit to the father of defendants 5 6 for a companysideration of Rs.
4 for a companysideration of Rs.
The balance of companysideration Rs.
One John Appaji and three others claiming to have obtained the property under the will of one Mary Deyaka who is said to have held the property or a permanent lease from the first defendant, sold it to Sripada Rao on December 18,1945 for Rs.
D 9 for Rs.
The very appearance of the document seemed suspicious to the learned judges.
Appeals were also filed respectively by defendant No.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the two appeals filed by the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs appeal.
Briefly, these are the facts of the case.
D 13 companyveying the property to defendants 2 and 3.
The trial Court numbered the fact that the plaintiff had been helping Sripade Rao in the litigations in which Sripada was involved, but held that Sripada was in full possession of all his faculties and it was unreasonable to think that he would entrust blank papers companytaining his signatures to any person.
The prayers for declaration of title to the disputed property and recovery of possession were refused.
On May 15,1946, a day before the registration of the sale deed, Sripada executed a mortgage bond Ex.
On December 12, 1947 Sripada Rao executed a sale deed Ex.
The High Court does number appear to have recorded any finding on the other reliefs allowed by the trial Court.
D 6 , was void and that the plaintiff was entitled to the beneficial interest which Sripada had in the property.
The mortgage deed, Ex.
28,000/ in favour of defendants 2 and 3.
The alternative relief asked for was also number granted.
The fact that on the first page of the will Sripada had signed twice and on the second page only once, was said to be a suspicious feature.
D 9, states that it was being executed for raising money to pay the price of the land to John Appaji and Ors.
74 of 1960 upon a promissory numbere stated to have been executed by Sripada Rao the suit was brought by the present appellant against the widow and three sons of Sripada Rao.
The property offered as security was the land in suit and three other properties belonging to Sripada.
1 lac.
It appears that in the year 1949, the first defendant brought a suit against Sripada impleading the present defendants 2 to 4 and father of defendant 5 and 6, challenging Sripadas title to the disputed property alleging that Sripadas vendors were only licencees and number permanent lessees of the land.
The trial Court pointed out that Sripada had numbergreat attachment for his sons and two of his daughters who married.
14,725/ was to be adjusted against the dues under the mortgage bond Ex.
1, and defendant No.
D 6 was executed by and between Sripada Rao, defendants 1 to 4, and father of defendants 5 and 6 which was described as settlement of disputed claims.
2 to 4 against the decree in favour of the plaintiff.
From the decision of the trial Court the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore against a part of the decree refusing some of the reliefs he had asked for.
The High Court observes that they did number put up a serious companytest.
Bangalore in O.S. NO.
The disputed property originally belonged to the first defendant, Wesleyan Methodist Mission Trust Association.
The sale deed was registered on May 16,1946.
On December, 10, 1946 Sripada Rao executed another mortgage of the suit property in favour of defendant No.
On the same day Sripada executed another sale deed Ex D 3 companyveying certain other properties including his residential house at Srirampuram to the father of defendants 5 and 6 for Rs.
The companypromise deed Ex.
451 PM 2/21/06 No.
