SURJIT SINGH Vs. LEKHU DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22nd November, 2005 passed in Civil Appeal No. 44-A/2003 by District Judge, Rajnandgaon whereby the judgment and decree dated 11-4-1996 passed by the IInd Civil Judge Class I, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 13-A/1995 has been set aside. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-

(2.) Plaintiffs (respondent No. 1 to 3 herein) filed a suit seeking relief of declaration of title and that the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 3 (respondent no. 4 herein in favour of defendant No. 1 (appellant No. 1 herein) dated 21-12-1974 is not binding on them and for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 (appellants herein) from interfering with their possession. Initially the plaintiffs case was that they are absolute owner of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 106/4 area 1 acre situated in village Gathula, Rajnandgaon and are also in its possession. The defendant No. 3 executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 on their behalf for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- without any legal necessity. The said sale was not for their benefit. The said sale deed executed by the defendant No. 3 is illegal and is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Mutation case was also dismissed by the revenue authorities. Later on after filing of written statement by the defendants, the plaintiffs have pleaded that the suit property was funded by the plaintiffs' maternal-grand-mother for their benefit and the defendant No. 3 did not pay anything for its purchase.

(3.) The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement separately. In nutshell the defence taken was that the suit land was purchased by the defendant No. 3 vide registered sale deed dated 3-4-1974 in the name of plaintiffs from Sardar Kartar Singh. The defendant No. 3 did not purchase the same in his own name in order to save the property from money lenders who have filed recovery suits against him. The plaintiffs are not real owner of the suit property. It was purchased benami and the same was sold by the defendant No. 3 validly to defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 21-12-74 which is binding upon the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that it is immaterial whether or not the suit property was purchased benami in the name of the plaintiffs for their benefit because the purchase was benami and real owner was defendant No. 3. However, as per the written statement, it has been stated that they have been dispossessed from the suit property in the year 1976 by the plaintiffs and since then the plaintiffs are in its actual possession.