ORDER :

C.M.Poonacha, J.

The above Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 r/w Order 44, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC) challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2017 passed in O.S. No.17/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sedam wherein the suit filed by the Plaintiff under Section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 has been dismissed with costs.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the father of the Plaintiff purchased plot No.1, Municipal No.2 - 5- 101 situated on Cinema Road at Sedam (hereinafter referred to as 'larger property') for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- in the name of his wife Smt.Gayatridevi vide registered Sale Deed dated 26.5.1971. That father of the Plaintiff was the elder brother of the Defendant No.1 and that when their father namely Shri. Kashinath Rao died in the year 1963, the Defendant No.1 was studying and the father of the Plaintiff was practicing Advocate. That after the death of the said Shri.Kashinath Rao, the father of the Plaintiff helped the Defendant No.1 in completing his Education and getting a job at the first instance. That as long as the Plaintiff's father was alive, the relationship between the Defendant No.1 and his elder brother i.e. the father of the Plaintiff was very cordial and the Plaintiff's father was having great confidence, love and affection to the Defendant No.1.

3.1. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that in the year 1976, the Plaintiff's father wanted to undertake construction over the property purchased in the name of his wife and he wanted to avail loan for the said purpose. The Defendant No.1 came to know of the said plan of the Plaintiff's father desirous of availing a loan, and he approached the Plaintiff's father stating that he being a Government Servant was eligible to obtain loan from the Government for construction of house at meager rate of interest as compared to loans given by commercial banks for the same purpose. In order to obtain the said loan, the father of the Plaintiff got transferred the plot in the name of Defendant No.1 by creating a nominal sale deed dated 02.10.1976 for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-. However, the same was not supported by any consideration and the Defendant did not pay any consideration to the father/mother of the Plaintiff. That on the basis of the Sale Deed, the Defendant No.1 applied for loan for construction. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was sanctioned to the Defendant.

3.2. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that his father invested more than Rs.1 Lakh and Rs.25,000/- loan amount granted by the Government to the Defendant, for construction of house and a shop over the plot in the year 1976-77 and the Plaintiff's father was residing in the said house and his office was also in the said house. The father of the Plaintiff was also letting out the shop portion and collecting the rent of the same. He was also letting out three rooms in the said house to different persons.

3.3. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that even though the house and shop constructed over the above said plot was nominally standing in the name of the Defendant in the municipal records, the father of the Plaintiff repaid the loan amount of Rs.25,000/- availed for construction of house and shop to the Defendant. Thus, the father of the Plaintiff was actual owner in possession of the entire building construction over the above said plot. That after the death of the father of the Plaintiff i.e., on 09.02.1992, the Defendant No.1 did not claim any right over the said property and that the Plaintiff, his mother and sisters continued to live continued to live in the said house as its owners.

3.4. That after the death of his father, when the Plaintiff came to know that the house and shop was standing in the name of Defendants' family, he requested the Defendant to get his name mutated in the Municipal records. However,