AMRIT SINGH Vs. KRIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant No.2 is as under:-

(2.) The suit land was originally held by Jagdhari. He had one daughter Sonkunwar and defendant No.1-Kalawati is daughter of Sonkunwar. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has purchased the suit land by oral sale by paying ?1000/- to Jagdhari and later on, on 8.4.96 vide Ex.P-1 further paid ?4000/- to Jagdhari and as such, he has already placed in possession and continued in possession and defendant No.1 has no right and title over the suit land, but defendant No.1 sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.2 on 28.1.2004 and thereafter the dispute arose and the plaintiff filed a suit on 24.2.2004 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and also that sale deed dated 28.1.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding upon him.

(3.) Resisting the suit, defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint stating inter-alia that no title has been passed in favour of the plaintiff by unregistered sale deed (Ex.P-1C) and possession being permissive, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of declaration of title and the suit be dismissed.