TULSIRAM Vs. DURGAPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court by order dated 26-6-1998 at the time of admission of this appeal:-

(2.) THE facts relevant for the decision of the question referred above are that Punna executed registered sale-deed dated 15-2-1957 in favour of plaintiff Durga Prasad. In this sale-deed the land sold has been described as Khasra No. 98 area 1. 92 acres of village Banhat. There is a concurrent finding of fact of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that actual Khasra No. 93 was intended to be sold and Khasra No. 98 was inserted in the sale-deed on account of mutual mistake of the parties. Punna himself wrote a letter dated 27-6-1960 (Ex. P-8) stating therein that Khasra No. 93 was the subject matter of sale and not Khasra No. 98. It has also been concurrently held on the basis of documentary and oral evidence that on the remaining area of 0. 61 acre of Khasra No. 93 (total area being 2. 53 acres) the plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession. The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are heirs of Punna and they have sold the land in dispute to the defendant Nos. 6 and 8 Tulsiram and Mohanlal by registered sale-deeds dated 30-3-1984 during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) THE Trial Court held that the plaintiff is Bhumiswami of the land Khasra No. 93 area 2. 35 acres; the defendant Nos. 6 and 8 have not acquired any rights in this land on the basis of the registered sale-deed dated 30-3-1984 and therefore, the defendants have been directed to deliver possession of this land to the plaintiff. The first appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court has failed and they have now filed the second appeal.