DRAUPADI BAI Vs. NATHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment -decree dated 19.9.1988 passed by ADJ, Khurai in C.A. 27 -A/86 reversing the judgment -decree dated 21.3.1986 passed by IIIrd Civil Judge Class II, Khurai in C.S. No. 61 -A/81, whereby plaintiff -appellant suit for declaration, possession and recovery of mesne profit was decreed, plaintiff -appellant has preferred this second appeal u/s 100 of the CPC.

(2.) THE appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions' of law :

(3.) SUIT land Khasra No. 490 area 6.12 acre village Silocha Tehsil Khurai District Sagar was owned by late Prem Singh. He remained in its possession continuously till March 1982 and on the basis of sale deed dated 11.6.1953 of late Bhagwan Singh was mutated in the revene record for the first time vide order dated 7.5.1981 on an application made by him to Tahsildar. The sale -deed (Ex. P -2) was executed for a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - in favour of late Bhagwan Singh. Simultaneously late Bhagwan Singh has executed agreement (Ex. P -1) agreeing to receive Rs. 1,300/ - and to execute a reconveyance of the suit land in favour of late Prem Singh, The aforesaid facts were admitted. PW 1 Prem Singh had stated that the late Bhagwan Singh was his brother -in -law (BARNOI). Rs. 1,000/ - was borrowed from him and a sale deed of the suit land for his satisfaction was executed. It was agreed that on payment of Rs. 1,300/ - inclusive of interest within a period of one year time late Bhagwan Singh will execute a reconveyance in his favour. Sale Deed Ex. P -2 accordingly was executed and late Bhagwan Singh also executed an agreement, Ex. P -1 in his favour. PW 1 Prem Singh further stated that Rs. 1,300/ - were repaid by him to late Bhagwan Singh within a year. Reconveyance deed was not executed by him by saying that Prem Singh was continuous in actual possession of the suit land and on the basis of sale deed Ex. P -2 name was not mutated in .the revenue record. This statement of PW 1 Prem Singh was fully supported by PW 2 Nathoo Singh and attesting witness of Ex. P -2, sale deed. PW 3 Tulsiram, PW 4 Arjan have also supported the aforesaid statement of PW 1 Prem Singh that the sale deed was a shown document and late Prem Singh remained in possession in continuity till dis -possessed in the year 1982. DW 1 simply stated that Rs. 1,300/ - were not repaid to him by late Prem Singh and he remained in permissive possession of the suit land. Only 6 years ago he entered into possession of the suit land after getting his name mutated in the revenue record. No ther witness was examined on behalf of the defendant late DW 1 Bhagwan Singh. The following facts have emerged from the aforesaid statement and document Ex. P -4, P -5, P -6, P -7 of the revenue records :