BANSHI Vs. SUKHDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant second appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Mungeli (hereinafter referred to as "first appellate Court"), in Civil Appeal No. 24-A/2006. By the said judgment dated 27.1.2007, the first appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 60-A/2002, by Civil Judge, Class-I, Mungeli, (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court"), has allowed the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff-Sukhdas.

(2.) Facts leading to the instant second appeal are that respondent No. 1 -plaintiff had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the appellant. Claim of the plaintiff was on the basis that he had come in possession over the suit land situated in Khasra No. 279/3, Rakba 0.57 acre, in village Charnitola by way of a registered sale deed dated 27.5.1999 from one Awadh Ram. As per the plaintiff, immediately after the purchase of the said suit land, he got the same mutated in his name in revenue records. However, the appellant-defendant No. 1 subsequently interfered with the possession of the plaintiff that led to filing of the civil suit.

(3.) The defendants in turn after receiving notice from the trial Court filed their written statement denying the contentions put forth by the plaintiff, and stating therein that in fact appellant-defendant No. 1 (Banshi) was the actual owner of the said suit land. According to defendant No. 1, the land originally belonged to one Ramadheen, who, in turn, sold the said land to him and Kundan and also given possession but, before the sale deed could be registered, Ramadheen had died. In between, the wife of Ramadheen, namely Jethiya Bai, filed a civil suit bearing No. 62-A/1987 seeking relief of possession against Banshi, and vide order dated 4.3.2002 (Ex. D-1), the said suit was decreed by way of a compromise. In between, the son of Ramadheen, namely Tularam, sold the suit property to Awadhram vide Ex. P-8 dated 8.6.1998, who, in turn, sold the said property to the plaintiff-Sukhdas vide Ex. P-7 dated 27.5.1999. According to appellant-defendant No. 1, he had perfected a right over the said property on account of the agreement of sale that was entered into by the original land owner Ramadheen who had sold the said land in his favour. Further case of the appellant was that the compromise decree that was passed on 4.3.2002 wherein it was ordered that the appellant (Banshi) would get the title and possession over the said property subject to legal heirs of Ramadheen executing a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant (Banshi) within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the compromise decree. It was also contended by the appellant that on account of the fact the subsequent transaction on the basis of which the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is claiming title over the said property is not binding upon him on account of the fact that the same is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1882").