A party cannot contest a previously valid sale without independent evidence of collusion or rights over the property sold.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard on merits regarding admission, learned counsel for appellant Sri. Keshavamurthy B. and Sri. Arun Shyam, learned senior counsel for Sri. Suyog Herele for respondent No.1.

2. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

Suit property was sold by the appellant herein by a registered sale deed dated 26.02.2000. Appellant is the first defendant in the suit in O.S. No.12/2015 filed by his daughters questioning the alienation. As expected, the appellant being the father of plaintiff did not contest the suit which shows that it is a collusive suit between the plaintiffs and the first defendant only with an intention to somehow grab the suit property which was sold by the first defendant in favour of the contesting respondent under a registered sale deed dated 26.02.2000.

-

3. Pertinent to that there was a total lull between the period of 26.02.2000 till the date of filing of suit in the year 2015.

4. It is also pertinent to note that in the sale deed, first defendant has categorically stated that suit property is his self acquired property. Even though the relief claimed in the suit for cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction, the basis for filing the suit by the daughters of the first defendant as plaintiffs is that the property is a joint family properties and plaintiffs did have independent interest in the suit property. To establish that suit property is joint family property, there is no material on record. Therefore the Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

-

5. In view of dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.25/2023 where again first defendant was shown as the first respondent. It is at that juncture, as an after thought, first defendant who is the appellant before this Court filed a cross objection. Cross objection is in the nature of supporting the case of plaintiffs and therefore it could not have been considered as cross objection strictly in accordance with law.

6. No doubt, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, dismissed the appeal, but did not chose to write in so many words that the cross objection is not maintainable in view of the fact that the first defendant did not contest the suit before the Trial Court.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, it is the first defendant who has filed the present appeal. In other words, plaintiffs are satisfied with the dismissal of the suit which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

-

8. Being aggrieved by the non consideration of the Cross Objection filed by the first defendant, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:

That the impugned Judgments and Decrees are contrary to the material on record and opposed to the well established principles of law and therefore the same are liable to be set aside.

That the impugned Judgments and Decree are not speaking orders as both the courts below have not assigned any cogent or justifiable reasons and therefore the same are liable to be set aside.

That while passing the Judgment and Decree in the Regular Appeal, the First Appellate Court has never uttered one single word about the filing of Cross- Objections by the Appellant nor made any observation about the same, and has never passed arty order on the Cross-Objections. As such, the First Appellant has committed a grave error in passing the impugned Judgment and Decree which is apparent on the face of the record, and therefore the same is liable to be s