record, the sale had been effected under Ex.B6 sale transaction for a sum of Rs.1,08,500/- however, the deceased second respondent, during the course of his evidence, has admitted that he had spent more than Rs.2,50,000/- for putting up the house construction in the abovesaid item of the suit properties and considering the abovesaid value together adding value of the site, the case of the appellant as well as the deceased second respondent that the 6th item of the suit properties had been alienated for a paltry sum of Rs.1,08,500/- under Ex.B6 sale transaction, as such, cannot be readily accepted and the same also creates a strong doubt whether at all the appellant would be a bona fide purchaser as putforth by him. Furthermore, with reference to the debts incurred from the Society by the deceased second respondent, the first respondent is found to have discharged the same by way of the document marked as Ex.B7 and the same is found to be much after the sale transaction covered under Ex.B6. Therefore, by way of Ex.B7 alone, it cannot be safely concluded that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the 6th item of the suit properties as putforth by him. As regards the claim of the appellant that he had been sold the abovesaid item of the suit properties for meeting out the medical expenses of the deceased second respondent, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, considering the medical documents projected in the matter, when the genuineness of the same had not been established, particularly, by examining the concerned Doctor or the author of the medical bills and furthermore, when the claim http://www.judis.nic.in
