SATTAR MOHAMMAD Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the defendants' second appeal is as under: -

(2.) Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendants No.1 to 3 stating inter-alia that he has purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 30.3.92 (Ex.P/1) from defendant No.3 and obtained peaceful possession of the suit land and his name was got mutated by order of the Tahsildar dated 14.8.1982 and challenge made to that mutation order by defendant No.1 in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Surguja was allowed by order dated 2.4.93 vide Ex.P/8 leading to filing of the suit for aforesaid relief. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff claimed that he has been dispossessed by the defendants, after rejecting his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, plaint was allowed to be amended by order dated 9.7.97 and relief of recovery of possession was claimed to be made by the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement before the trial Court stating inter-alia that agreement to sell was executed by defendant No.3 in their favour on 2.1.91 (Ex.D/1) and possession was delivered to defendants No.1 and 2 by defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 has also executed two sale deeds dated 6.4.92 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 respectively vide Ex.D/2 and D/3, as such, they are in possession over the suit land and the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed. It is pertinent to note that name of defendant No.3 has been deleted during course of the trial.