KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHI Vs. MANOHARLAL GOLCHHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been preferred by Defendant No.2 - Kaushal Kishore Awasthi under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dtd. 12/12/2017 passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/2014, whereby the learned trial Court has decreed the Plaintiff's claim. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court below.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff - Manoharlal Golchha instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and possession with regard to the property in question bearing Kh.No.736/02 area 0.05 acres constructed with a Kachha tiled house over 500 sq.ft. of it, described in plaint Schedule - 'A' while seeking further relief of declaration to the effect that the registered deed of sale dtd. 29/10/2004 executed by Defendant No.1 - Hastimal Surana in favour of Defendant No.2 - Kaushal Kishore Awasthi be declared as null and void and not binding upon him. According to the Plaintiff, he purchased the land in question by virtue of a registered deed of sale dtd. 22/6/2004 executed by Defendant No.1 - Hastimal Surana for a consideration of Rs.1,40,000.00 while putting him in possession thereof. Further contention of him is that since construction materials of said Defendant were lying there at the relevant point of time, therefore, he took some time for handing over its possession. It is pleaded further that when it was not handed over to him despite of the said assurance, a demand notice dtd. 11/2/2005 was, therefore, issued to him and, it is pleaded further that he applied for mutation of the land in question based upon the alleged sale deed dtd. 22/6/2004 before the Tahsildar Dantewada where it was rejected on 5/8/2005 on the ground that the name of Defendant No.2 - Kaushal Kishore Awasthi has already been directed to be recorded vide order dtd. 30/12/2004 based upon the registered deed of sale dtd. 29/10/2004, which was executed in his favour, giving rise to the institution of the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 11/12/2007.

(3.) Defendant No.1, while contesting the claim, has raised a counter claim on 15/1/2014 questioning the alleged deed of sale 22/6/2004 alleging inter alia that the Plaintiff has succeeded to get the alleged registered deed of sale with the connivance of Deputy Registrar, Jagdalpur even without paying the entire sale consideration to him. It is pleaded further that the possession of the suit land had already been handed over to Defendant No.2 - Kaushal Kishore Awasthi in pursuance of the agreement to sell dtd. 10/4/1999 and had obtained the entire sale consideration from him on 21/5/2004, and therefore, the Plaintiff has no right over the property in question based upon the alleged registered deed of sale dtd. 22/6/2004, which deserves to be declared as null and void.