KAMTA PRASAD Vs. PILWADAS BAIJNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The present Appeal is against the judgment and decree dtd. 30/4/2019 passed by the District Judge, Bemetara in Civil Suit No.16-A/2018 whereby, the suit filed by the Appellants/Plaintiff was dismissed.

(3.) (I) The brief facts of the case as pleaded are that the Appellants/Plaintiffs who are three in number namely Kamta Prasad, Yado Ram and Lakhbir Singh were sons of DheluramDefendant/Respondent No.2. They held a co-parcenary property , which was recorded in name of their father Dheluram. The Plaintiffs claimed that the partition was effected between them and the suit property which was sold by Dheluram belongs to them as it fell in their share. The sale deed was executed in respect of Khasra Nos.792 admeasuring 0.30 hectares and 796 admeasuring 0.64 hectares by father of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs pleaded that their father was given a share of a different land. Over that background, in the year 2011, Dheluram sold the property to Defendant No.1-Pilwadas wherein, the right was claimed by the Plaintiffs. According to the Plaintiffs, they were in dire need of money and as such, a sham and bogus sale deed was executed by their father, though the suit land does not belong to him. It was further pleaded that on the same date of the execution of sale deed i.e. 26/5/2011, another agreement was executed which purports that it was a mortgage. A prayer was made that the suit property which bears Khasra Nos.792 admeasuring 0.30 hectares and 796 admeasuring 0.64 hectares belongs to Yado Ram and Kamta Prasad, the Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1- Pilwadas was the purchaser and prayer was made that he be restrained to interfere in their possession by way of a permanent injunction. (II) The Defendants denied the allegations made in the Plaint. It was further pleaded by execution of the sale deed on 26/5/2011 that they came into possession of the suit land by purchase and the sale deed was an absolute one and no mortgage was created. It was stated even otherwise that the agreement which was executed on 26/5/2011 does not create any right in favour of the Plaintiffs. It was stated that as per the Revenue Court's order, since the dispute arose with regard to the possession, by order of the Revenue Court, they came into possession of the suit land and prayed for dismissal of the suit.