RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. HARISHCHANDRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff for declaration of title and perpetual injunction passed by the Courts below in concurrent manner.

(2.) Briefly stated relevant facts are that the plaintiff/respondent no.1 instituted suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against defendant/appellant and respondents no.2 to 4 with allegations that the suit immovable property ad-measuring 50x25 feet in the shape of Khandhar situated at Shivpura opposite Khachrod Naka near Ratlam Phatak, Nagda comprised in survey no.365/1 was purchased by plaintiff from respondents no.2 and 3 for consideration of Rs.10,000/- vide registered purchase deed dated 27.04.1983. Respondents no.2 and 3 pursuant to the purchase deed delivered actual possession of the disputed Khandhar to the plaintiff at the time of sale deed. Plaintiff was residing at a far distance from the disputed Khandhar. However, for safety purpose he made some construction on it. Municipal Council, Nagda filed a case against the plaintiff for making construction without permission. Since the construction was without due permission fine was imposed on plaintiff and his brother by the Court of law. Later on, plaintiff came to know about the damage having been caused to the wall of the suit property. On enquiry he came to know that defendant/appellant is claiming the suit property to be of his ownership on the strength of registered sale deed dated 22.07.2003 executed by respondent no.4. On further enquiry, he came to know that respondent no.4 claimed to have purchased the suit property from respondents no.2 and 3 vide registered sale deed dated 20.01.2003. Plaintiff asserting his title as well as possession instituted a suit with an allegation that respondents no.2 and 3 having already sold the suit property to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 27.04.1983 were not competent to execute the sale deed to respondent no.4 who in turn was incompetent to sell the same to the defendant/appellant. Thus, the sale deeds executed by respondents no.2 and 3 on 20.01.2003 and further by respondent no.4 on 22.07.2003 are illegal and ineffective. Plaintiff, therefore, claimed declaration that he be declared owner as well as occupant of the suit property. He further prayed for declaration that the registered sale deeds dated 20.01.2003 and 22.07.2003 are null and void and ineffective qua the plaintiff. Perpetual injunction has also been sought restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering into plaintiff's possession.

(3.) Respondents no.2 and 3 submitted joint written statement on 03.12.2003. They denied to have executed registered sale deed dated 27.04.1983 for consideration of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. They further denied to have delivered possession of the suit property pursuant to the said sale deed. Instead, they stated that they have executed registered sale deed in favour of respondent no.4 on 20.01.2003 for consideration of Rs.25,000/- and had handed over actual possession of the suit property in pursuance of the said sale deed.