(1.) None has turned up on behalf of the plaintiff respondent despite sufficient service. So, this Court rendered hearing to learned Counsel for the defendant appellant.
(2.) The net controversy in the present case is that the plaintiff respondent is the owner of Khet No. 141/1, area 0.464 hectare, and the Khet No. 141/2, area 0.379 hectare. Out of this total land, he intended to sell 40 x 60 i.e. 2400 sq. mt. plot of land to the defendant appellant, wherefor he had received rupees twenty five thousand on 4.8.2002 and rupees seventy five thousand on 2.4.2003. An unregistered agreement to sale was also got drafted between the parties on 2.4.2003.
(3.) Although there is a clause regarding the delivery of possession over the plot to the prospective purchaser, but both persons are claiming their rival real possession over the disputed plot. That apart, in the survey, the defendant could never be able to get his name mutated in the concerned Khasra. When the defendant interfered in the possession of the whole land, Kedar Dutt Bhatt instituted the Original Suit No. 78/2008, which was decreed by the Trial Court on 31.5.2014, whereagainst the first appeal also failed on 28.9.2015 holding that rupees one lakh was returned by Kedar Dutt Bhatt to the prospective purchaser Bishan Dutt Bhatt by way of two separate cheques amounting to rupees one lakh and fifty thousand. Such return of the money cannot be disputed by Bishan Dutt Bhatt because it was done through the bank transaction.