RAJ KISHORE Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 25th February, 2003, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Gwalior Bench, whereby Second Appeal No. 230 of 1995 filed by the Appellants-Plaintiffs was allowed but only in part and to the extent of granting a decree for injunction restraining the Defendants-Respondents from interfering with the possession of the Appellants over the suit property till such time the said property is partitioned between them through the competent Revenue Court concerned. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated as under:

(2.) Late Shri Raj Kishore the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs-Appellants herein owned jointly with his brother Defendant-Respondent No. 2 Shri Jugal Kishore agricultural land situate in different survey numbers of village Morasa, Tehsil Kurwai in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In terms of a sale-deed executed and registered on 6th July, 1974 by Shri Raj Kishore an extent of 14 bighas and 15 biswas of the land aforementioned from out of survey Nos. 436, 439/1 and 441 was transferred to the Defendant-Respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- only. The Plaintiffs case is that the transfer was only by way of security for the repayment of Rs. 6,000/- which according to the Plaintiff was taken only as a loan. The Plaintiffs further case is that return of the loan amount by the 6th July, 1981 would result in the land in question being transferred back to the Plaintiff to which effect an agreement was also executed between the parties to the transaction on the 6th July, 1974 itself. The Plaintiff alleged that the possession of the land in question continued with him and Defendant No. 2 as agreed. It was also agreed between the parties that Defendant No. 1 shall not get the disputed land mutated in their name till 6th July, 1981, the date by which the Plaintiff could repay the amount of loan and secure the return of their land.

(3.) The Plaintiff further alleged that contrary to the agreement between the parties Defendant No. 1 got a mutation regarding the land in question attested in his favour although he had no right to do so in view of the specific stipulation contained in the agreement between the parties forbidding any such mutation. The Plaintiff asserted that they had approached Defendant No. 1 several times to receive back the sum of Rs. 6,000/- borrowed from him and to get the land in question transferred back to them, but the said Defendant had refused to do the needful. The Plaintiff in that backdrop prayed for a decree for declaration to the effect that the sale-deed executed by him in favour of Defendant No. 1 was void and ineffective and that he continued to be in cultivating possession of the land as owner thereof.