K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants. Suit for recovery of the suit property has been decreed against them by the first appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit by the Subordinate Judge, rajahmundry.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that, the first appellant on behalf of himself and his minor sons, that is the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had executed a sale deed, Ex. A-1, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- on 28-6-1974, in favour of the deceased plaintiff Kadim Venkataswamy, after receiving an advance of Rs. 3,500/- and the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 8,500/- was agreed to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed, Ex. A-1. Although it was mentioned in the sale deed, ex. A-1, that the vendor had put the deceased-plaintiff Kadim Venkataswamy in possession of the suit property, yet, it was not delivered to him, because it was agreed between them that its possession would be delivered after three months therefrom, because, some tenant was occupying some part of the suit property. The deceased-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property and for damages for its use and occupation, alleging that subsequent thereto, the appellants evaded the delivery of possession of the suit property and getting the sale deed, Ex. A-1, registered and/ therefore, he filed the sale deed, Ex. A-1, before the Sub-Registrar for registration and the sub-Registrar, after holding due enquiry, registered the sale deed, Ex. A-1, on 19-4-1975. The deceased plaintiff had offered the payment of the balance amount of consideration and had deposited the amount at the time of institution of the suit.

( 3 ) THE appellants resisted the suit alleging that the 1st appellant was a man of feeble-mind and his mental condition was not good at the time of execution of the sale deed, Ex. A-1, that the intention of the appellants was to sell the suit property only on receiving the whole amount of consideration, that the payment of Rs. 8,500/- by the deceased plaintiff was a condition precedent for transferring the suit property in his favour, that the deceased plaintiff was never ready to pay the balance amount of consideration and, therefore, they were under the impression that the transaction had been treated as cancelled, but suddenly the deceased plaintiff, taking advantage of the possession of the sale deed, Ex. A-1, had submitted it before the Sub-Registrar without notice to the appellants and got the sale deed, Ex. A-1, registered, that the sale deed did not confer any title on the deceased plaintiff and, therefore, he was not entitled to take the vacant possession of the suit property. In the alternative, they have pleaded that the deceased plaintiff was liable to pay the balance amount of consideration with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

( 4 ) ON assessment of the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the payment of the balance amount of consideration of rs. 8,500/- was a condition precedent and the intention of the appellants was to convey the title only on receipt of the balance amount of consideration. This decree of dismissal of the suit has been successfully challenged by the adopted son of the deceased plaintiff who had died during the pendency of the suit.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrievedby the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendants have preferred this appeal.

( 6 ) RELYING on the cases of Motilal Sahu vs. Ugrah Narain Sahu and others, panchoo Sahu vs. Janki Mandar and others, Shiva Narayan Sah and others vs. Baidya nath Prasad Tiwary and others, Ram Chandra Singh and others etc. , vs. Sub-Divisional officer, Hajipur and others, Hara Bewa and others vs. Banchanidhi Barik and others, Ananda Chandra Pradhan vs. Nilakantha Tripathy and others and The melur Co-operative Marketing Society vs. Salia Mariam and others, it has been conten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document