ABRAHAM Vs. DOMNIK TOPPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal preferred by defendant No.1 / appellant herein was admitted on the following three substantial questions of law: -

(2.) Respondent No.1 herein / plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction of the suit land described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint stating inter alia that the disputed land belongs to him, as in the year 1973, a sum of Rs. 1,300/- was given by him to his wife Makdali and directed her to purchase land in his name, but defendant No.1, who is his nephew, by playing fraud, got the sale deed Ex.P-4 dated 27-8-1973 executed from one Kutnaram, S/o Bital, in his own name. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 got the name mutated which was set-aside by the Tahsildar, but in appeal preferred by defendant No.1, the mutation order was setaside by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar necessitating the institution of suit by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in which defendant No.1 set up the plea that he he has purchased the suit land by registered sale deed Ex.P-4 from one Kutnaram on 27-8- 1973 for valid sale consideration and he is the title holder of the suit land which has not been questioned by the plaintiff in the suit filed and the suit is also barred by limitation and as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is owner and title holder of the suit land and consequently also restrained defendant No.1 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. In appeal preferred by defendant No.1, he remained unsuccessful leading to filing of this second appeal in which three substantial questions of law have been framed which have set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.