9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of two registered sale deeds (Exs. 4 and 5) for the disputed properties. 2. Claim of defendant No. 2 regarding the collusive and fraudulent nature of the sale deeds. 3. Existence of consideration for the sale deeds. 4. Defendant No. 2's standing to question the passing of consideration. Analysis: 1. The suit involved the disputed properties sold to the plaintiffs by defendant No. 7 through two registered sale deeds. Defendants 1 to 6 claimed no title, while defendant No. 2 contested the suit, alleging that the sale deeds were collusive and without consideration. Defendant No. 7 admitted executing the sale deeds in exchange for consideration. 2. The Addl. District Judge found defendant No. 2's claims unsubstantiated, ruling that the sale deeds were valid. The plaintiffs' possession within the limitation period was established, and defendant No. 2 was deemed a trespasser with no valid claim to the property. 3. The onus to prove the absence of consideration fell on defendant No. 7 and defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 7's admission of executing the sale deeds and receiving consideration shifted the focus from the plaintiffs' evidence of payment to her acknowledgment. 4. Legal precedents cited emphasized that a stranger to a transaction, like defendant No. 2, cannot challenge the passing of consideration unless they establish a legal interest in the property. Defendant No. 2's lack of standing to dispute consideration was highlighted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 5. The judgment concluded that defendant No. 2, being a trespasser and having no connection to the sale deeds, lacked the legal basis to contest the passing of consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party by the Court.
|
