KARAN SINGH Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is filed impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 7.8.2004 and the first appellate court dated 5.11.2005; by which the suit of the appellants -plaintiffs for declaration and injunction for cancelling of the registered sale deed dated 4.9.1989 executed by the appellants -plaintiffs in favour of defendant no.3 has been dismissed.

(2.) APPELLANTS -plaintiffs filed the subject suit stating that they alongwith the defendant nos. 1 and 2 (who are also brothers of the plaintiffs) agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant no.3, however, the intention of defendant nos. 1 and 2 became malafide and they colluded with defendant no.3 unlawfully and fraudulently by paying lesser consideration got the sale deed executed and registered with respect to the suit property admeasuring 19 bighas and 4 biswas forming part of Khasra no. 28/14 to 17, Village Deramandi, Delhi in favour of defendant no.3. It was contended that the sale deed not only was fraudulently got executed, but, the sale was in violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (in short DLR Act) as per which no sale deed can be executed of an agricultural land, if after the sale, the sellers would be left with land less than 8 standard acres in the village.

(3.) THE trial court has held that there was no fraud in execution of the sale deeds and that the entire consideration as stated in the sale deeds, and which was the agreed price, was paid. Trial court held that there does not arise any question of fraud because as many as 6 persons appeared before the sub - Registrar and they signed/executed the sale deed and registered the sale deed. These aspects were deposed to on behalf of defendant no.3 by DW -2 Sh. Ram Singh who was the Deputy Pradhan of the village. Similar deposition was made by DW -1 Sh. Suresh Kumar with respect to the execution and registration of the sale deed. Both these DWs also deposed that the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 transferred their remaining land on the same date as the sale deed, an area of two acres, to their wives and mother to avoid the contravention of Section 33 of the DLR Act. Trial court has also held that in fact the suit is a collusive suit between the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 and as referred to the fact that the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 had jointly written a letter to the sub -Registrar where it was stated that the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 have been cheated and they were fraudulently induced to sign the sale deed, and which stand is different than the stand taken up in the written statement in the suit that the plaintiffs did not sign the sale deed. The relevant observations in this regard which have been made by the trial court are in paras 25 to 31 of the impugned judgment of the trial court and which read as under: -