GAMA Vs. SPL. JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned two writ petitions are against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2001 passed by Special Judge (A.C.)/Additional District and Sessions Judge Varanasi in civil revision no. 284 of 1999 arose out of original suit no 1189 of 1995 (Gama Vs Rama ) and civil revision no. 285 of 1999 arose out of original suit no. 1190 of 1995 ( Shyam Lal Vs. Rama) raises common question of law to be decided by this court. As such both the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by common judgement

(2.) The facts giving rise to the controversy in the present two writ petitions mentioned above are that the suits were filed by the petitioners against the defendant -respondent(Rama) seeking relief that the defendants be directed to execute sale deed in respect of land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint in lieu of the land which was sold to them by registered sale deed dated 2.5.1984 The case of the petitioners is that Rama son of Raju i.e defendant/respondent no.3 executed two registered sale deeds of the same date i.e 2.5.1984 asserting himself to be a Bhumidhar of the land, which was subject matter of sale deeds, after taking adequate consideration. The plaintiff's case is that they have entered into possession of the land which were subject matter of the two sale deeds. However, in the month of June 1995 they came to know that land sold to them was Gaon Sabha property. Thereafter they confirmed the fact from the record and after satisfying themselves they asked the defendant (Rama) to return the sale consideration given by them along with other expenses incurred in execution of sale deeds dated 2.5.1984. Two notices were given on 12.7.1995 and 15.7.1995 by the petitioners. In reply given to the notice the defendant-respondent no.3 denied the assertions made therein and finally on 30.10.1995 he refused to pay back the amount of consideration along with other expenses as also the request of the plaintiffs to execute another fresh sale deed in lieu of consideration received by him.

(3.) In the written statements filed by the defendant-respondent in both the suits he denied the claim of the plaintiffs. The amendment applications were filed in both the suits along with affidavit by which paragraph 17 Ka was sought to be added to the effect that amount of sale consideration along with interest be realised from the defendant. The relief clause in the plaint was sought to be amended which is paragraph-17 and prayer for recovery of sale consideration from the defendant respondent given under the sale deed dated 2.5.1984 was sought for. The amendment application was allowed by order dated 15.9.1999 passed by the trial court.