GUN SAGAR Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff are as under:

(2.) The suit property was originally held by plaintiffs' father Tilakram Kewat, he sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.1Narayan by registered sale deed dated 15.3.71 (Ex.D4C) for cash consideration of 1000/ and thereafter name of defendant No.1 was mutated in revenue records by order dated 17.4.94, which the plaintiffs challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda by filing an appeal. The SDO dismissed the appeal on 14.12.98 as barred by limitation and further appeal and revision were also dismissed by the Collector and the Commissioner respectively. Order of the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur dismissing the appeal on 31.5.1999 has been filed as Ex.P5. In the meanwhile, defendant No.1 sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 on 14.2.1997 (Ex.D1). Thereafter as late as on 23.2.2001 the plaintiffs who are successors of Tilakram Kewat, filed a suit that alienation made by their father Tilakram Kewat in favour of defendant No.1 on 15.3.71 (Ex.D4C) and consequent alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 are void and inoperative and decree for declaration and further decree for possession, if any, be granted in their favour. The trial Court decreed the suit, which the first appellate Court reversed dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, against which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff No.1, in which substantial questions of law have been formulated by this Court, which have been setout in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Mr.Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court as sale deed was never executed by the plaintiffs' father Tilakram in favour of defendant No.1 and the suit was within limitation and therefore, it could not have been interfered with by the first appellate Court, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment & decree of the first appellate Court be set aside and that of the trial Court be restored.