the Court rejected the subsequent purchaser’s application for an injunction and proceeded ex parte against the intermediate buyer . 53. Moreover, the subsequent purchaser claims to have paid a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,86,30,150/-, and further asserts that the original title documents came into his possession and were subsequently mortgaged to a finance company. Merely because the subsequent purchaser managed to mortgage the suit property on the basis of title documents, which have not been proved in accordance with the law, it does not result in any conferment of title upon him. In fact, it goes on to indicate towards another deceptive transaction. 54. However, these assertions are not substantiated by any oral testimony or primary documentary evidence on record. It is further seen that the sale deed dated 27.12.2012, under which the subsequent purchaser purports to derive title, also remains unproved, as neither its execution nor the payment of consideration has been established. In the absence of such proof, the Court holds that the subsequent purchaser fails to discharge the statutory burden of proof required to establish ownership or lawful title over the suit property. 55. Moreover, the alleged sale deeds dated 19.06.2003 and 27.12.2012, propounded by the intermediate and subsequent purchasers respectively, have already been adjudicated upon in CS(OS) No. 2031/2014 and held to be unproved, inadmissible in evidence, and devoid of any legal efficacy.
