received on -26/08/2008 registered on 30/08/2008 decided on – 14 ...

16
17 Plaintiff claims that defendant no.l is in collusion with
defendants no. 2 and 3. I have already mentioned that defendant no.l
was ex parte. But at the fag end of the litigation, he appeared and
requested to set aside the ex parte order and filed consent written
statement of defence in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants no. 2 and
3 come with a specific plea that defendant no.l is a maternal uncle of
the plaintiff and in collusion with each other, theyhave prepared the
anti dated agreement to sale. Both of the attesting witnesses on
agreement to sale are appears to be a close relatives of the plaintiff
and defendant no.l. Moreover, there is no reference of an
agreement to sale in the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 30/05/2008.
Had there been any agreement to sale dated 10/04/2007, definitely it
would have been reflected in the sale deed (exh.42). Moreover, the
plaintiff could have got mutated his name to the 7/12 extract on the
basis of agreement to sale. All the above facts create serious doubt
about the authenticity of the plaintiffs claim. I, therefore, answer
issues no. 1,2,3,5,6 and 13 accordingly.
AS TO ISSUE NO0. 4-
19 Plaintiff claims that he has purchased eastern side 61 R
land under registered sale deed bearing no. 1260/2008 for the
consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/- and he is in possession over the said
61 R land. This fact is not challenged by the defendant no. 2 and 3.
Therefore, no other proof is required to answer issue no. 4 in the
affirmative.