The legitimacy of a sale deed prevails unless convincingly challenged, affirming that possession cannot be disturbed without due process.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

1. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the property originally belongs to the defendant and defendant sold the property in favour of one Chaithra in the year 2006 i.e., ‘A’ schedule property and subsequently, the very same Chaithra sold the property in favour of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 29.01.2010 and thereafter, all the revenue records are also changed in the name of the plaintiff and defendant also aware of the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the month of January 2010, the defendant has requested the plaintiff to stay for few days and defendant has entered into the said portion with the permission of the plaintiff measuring an extent of north to south 10 feet and east to west 35 feet, totally, measuring 350 feet which is more fully described in the ‘B’ schedule property. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.113/2012 against his vendor and also against the plaintiff and the same was decreed and against the judgment the of Trial Court, an appeal was also filed in R.A.No.105/2020 and the same also dismissed. Thereafter, notice was issued against the defendant to quit and vacate the suit schedule property but the defendant did not vacate the same. Hence, filed the suit.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. It is contended by the defendant that defendant acquired the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 19.02.2000 from his legal vendor and all the Municipal records stands in the name of the defendant and defendant is enjoying the property as an absolute owner. It is also contended that defendant availed a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from Karnataka Housing Board, Chikkaballapura by mortgaging the said property for his family and legal necessities. The defendant also availed a loan of Rs.4,14,000/- from the plaintiff and for the security of the said loan amount, the defendant has executed a nominal sale deed dated 20.07.2006 in favour of the plaintiff. It is further contended that when the plaintiff and K P Narayanaswamy tried to obstruct the possession and enjoyment of the defendant with respect to the said property, defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.113/2012 and the said suit was decreed and against the said decree, the plaintiff and Narayanaswamy have preferred an appeal in R.A.No.105/2020 and the same is pending before the Court. It is further contended that a criminal case is filed against the defendant in C.C.No.450/2013 and Special Case No.41/2012 and the same is disposed of by acquitting the defendant for the alleged offences by the plaintiff and Narayanaswamy Further, in Special Case No.41/2012, defendant being a witness has given evidence and admitted the sale deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and also admitted that the defendant will return back the amount. The plaintiff is going to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant. The defendant has approached the plaintiff on number of occasions to execute the sale deed. But the plaintiff with the collusion and instigation of Narayanaswamy postponed the same for one or the other reasons. The defendant has caused legal notice to the plaintiff and Naraya