VED PRAKASH Vs. PHOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This second appeal was allowed on 20.2.2006. Against the said judgment and decree special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 5197 of 2007. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on 14.11.2007 on the ground that questions of law had not been framed and remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing. Thereafter amendment application was filed on 15.12.2008 containing five substantial questions of law. The application was allowed on 30.1.2009. On 13.12.2011, following order was passed on the order sheet:

(2.) This second appeal arises out of Original Suit No. 358 of 1973 instituted by Ved Prakash minor son of Ram Singh through his guardian Shri Naresh Chand, maternal uncle. In the suit father and mother of the plaintiff minor, i.e., Ram Singh and Smt. Prakasho were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant No. 1 was Phool Chand. It was stated in the plaint that Ram Singh father of plaintiff Ved Prakash had executed registered gift deed of the agricultural land in dispute in his favour on 28.2.1962 when Ved Prakash plaintiff was only two years old. Ram Singh after about two and half years of the Gift Deed, Le., on 3.8.1964 executed a registered sale deed of the agricultural land in dispute in favour of Phool Chand, defendant-respondent No. 1. Through the suit cancellation of the said sale deed had been sought. Suit was decreed on 2.6.1975 by City Munsif. Saharanpur and sale deed dated 3.8.1964 was cancelled. Against the said decision defendant-respondent No. 1 Phool Chand filed Civil Appeal No. 226 of 1975 which was allowed by Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur on 19.2.1976 through which judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside and suit for cancellation of the sale deed was dismissed hence this second appeal. The lower appellate court held that:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance upon the authority of the Supreme Court in K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam and others, 2004 AIR(SC) 1257, (as was done at the earlier stage when this appeal was allowed).