DECREE

DATED

25.02.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.241/2003 ON THE FILE OF PRL.

CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC, KADUR AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN

ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by unsuccessful

defendant in O.S.No.241/2003, wherein both Courts have

concurrently held that plaintiff in O.S.No.241/2003 is in

lawful possession and consequently, the plaintiff’s suit for

injunction simplicitor is decreed thereby restraining the

present defendant herein from interfering with the

plaintiff’s peaceful possession over the suit schedule

property.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as

they are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for injunction in

O.S.No.241/2003 against the defendant claiming that he is

- 3 -

the

absolute

owner

over

the

suit

land

bearing

Sy. No.161/4P measuring 10 guntas. The plaintiff claimed

that defendant is unnecessarily obstructing and interfering

with his peaceful possession. The plaintiff claimed that he

has purchased the property from the defendant under the

registered sale deed dated 06.05.1996 vide Ex.D.2 and

therefore, the plaintiff claimed that he is in lawful

possession and hence, prayed for perpetual injunction

against the defendant.

4. By way of counter blast, defendant filed a suit for

specific performance of contract in O.S.No.11/2004

alleging that plaintiff in O.S.No.241/2003 and his wife

namely Smt.Thimmamma have executed an agreement of

sale on 18.2.2002 and hence, filed a suit for specific

performance.

5. Both suits were clubbed and evidence was let in

O.S.No.11/2004, which is one for specific performance of

contract. The present plaintiffs, who had, in fact, filed

- 4 -

bare suit for injunction at the earliest point of time, let in

rebuttal evidence and produced registered sale deed,

which was marked at Ex.D.2. The present plaintiffs

specifically pleaded that agreement of sale vide Ex.P.1 is

concocted and fraudulent document.

6. The Trial Court having assessed the pleadings,

oral and documentary evidence in both suits have

recorded a categorical findings that agreement of sale set

up by the defendants herein is a fraudulent and concocted

document. Consequently, suit for specific performance

filed by the defendant is dismissed, while bare suit for

injunction filed by plaintiff in O.S.No.241/2003 is decreed

by recording a finding that plaintiff is in lawful possession

based on the registered sale deed executed by the

defendant herein.

7. The defendant having suffered a decree in suit for

specific performance of contract has not opted to prefer an

appeal, however, he has questioned the perpetual

- 5 -

injunction granted by the Court in O.S.No.241/2003 in

R.A.No.33/2009. The Appellate Court has independently

assessed the entire evidence on record. The contention of

the defendant that the sale deed executed by him on

06.05.1996 is a nominal sale deed was also outrightly

rejected by the Appellate Court. Referring to the title

documents, the Appellate Court was also of the view that

the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his lawful possession

as on the date of filing of the suit. Consequently, the

appeal is dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsels on record and perused

the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

9. The plaintiff in O.S.No.241/2003 is asserting

lawful possession based on the registered sale deed

executed by the defendants on 06.05.1996. The defendant

by way of counter blast filed a suit for specific

performance. The Trial Court on examining the agreement

of sale has come to the conclusion that it is concocted and

- 6 -

fraudulent

document.

If

the

plaintiff

is

asserting

possessory rights based on the registered sale deed

executed by the defendant and in absence of rebuttal

evidence let in by the defendant indicating that the sale

deed dated 06.05.1996 is a nominal sale deed, then I am

of the view that both Courts