The judgment establishes the principle that a sale deed can be deemed null and void if fraud and misrepresentation are proven, as per the provisions of the Registration Act 1908.

N. KUMAR, J.-These two appeals are preferred by the defendant in the suit challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, which has declared that the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in O.S. No. 229/1990, is fraudulent and consequently setting aside the sale deed.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in O.S. No. 229/1990.

3. The subject matter of the suit is the land bearing block No. 219 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas assessed at Rs. 2.16 ps at Madanbhavi Village, Dharwad Taluka. The plaintiff is Basayya Rachayya Hiremath. The defendant is Basayya Shivaputraya Hiremath. The case of the plaintiff is, the land of the defendant measuring 2 acre 20 guntas is adjacent to the suit land of plaintiff. After his retirement, the defendant is residing at Madanbhavi Village. In order to acquire the property in the same village, he picked up quarrel in the village. On account of such quarrel with the plaintiff, panchayat was held in the village on 05.02.1990, wherein the elderly persons settled the matter. The defendant not being satisfied with said settlement of the elderly persons, hatched a plan with his henchmen. The plaintiff was taken to the Sub-Registrar's office, Dharwad, falsely, representing to the plaintiff that a sale deed was to be executed by one of the henchmen and the plaintiff should attest the said document. Though the plaintiff was reluctant to accompany them to the sub-Registrar's office, the henchmen of the defendant namely Ningangouda, Hanamantagouda Patil, Babagouda alias Balasaba Hanamansik Patil, Madiwalayya Chanabasayya Hiremath, Mallappa G. Subhedar and Shivalingayya Basappa Hiremath have forcefully taken the plaintiff to the Sub-Registrar's office, Dharwad. When the plaintiff was taken to Dharwad, he was not allowed to move up or to meet anybody to speak. He was asked to sit near the Sub-Registrar's office up to 4.00 p.m. which was a Bazaar day i.e., Tuesday. The plaintiff was called in the office and asked to attest the document, as an attesting witness, and he was given to understand that that Ninganagouda Hanamantagouda Patil has executed a document in favour of the defendant. When the plaintiff was taken inside the office, the plaintiff was asked to sign the document as an attesting witness which was not read over nor any money was counted before him. It appears, even the Sub-Registrar has colluded with the defendant. It is falsely recited in the document that Rs. 2,000/- has been counted before the Sub-Registrar, which in fact, did not take place. The fact of sale transaction has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 01/03/1990 when there was a rumour in the village that the defendant has purchased the suit land from the plaintiff. The plaintiff was surprised to hear this rumour. The plaintiff came to the Sub-Registrar's office on 02/03/1990 and made enquiry and it revealed that there was sale transaction in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff is certain that the defendant in collusion with his henchmen has practiced fraud upon him by making a representation that the plaintiff was required to attest a sale deed of Ninganagouda Hanamantagouda Patil. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the alleged sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is a forged one and it does not convey any title to the suit land and consequential relief of injunction against the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land of the plaintiff. Therefore, he sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 06/02/1990 alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant is nullity and it does not convey any title to the suit land. He also sought for a decree of permanent injunction and alternatively it was prayed that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is out of possession, in that event, the possession of the suit lan