HOTAM SINGH LAHARIYA Vs. RAMCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2002 passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge Gwalior in Civil Suit No.34-A of 2000 dismissing the suit for declaration of title, delivery of possession after locating the disputed land or refund of the amount of consideration paid to the tune of Rs.57,000/- and the expenses of registering the sale deed amounting to Rs.7340/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum I.e. 21.4.1995. In this appeal, the appellant is referred as 'plaintiff' and respondent no.1 as 'defendant'.

(2.) The admitted facts are as follows :

(3.) Facts, in brief, of the plaint are that defendant Ramcharan Singh was Bhumiswami of the land included in Survey No.4139 situated in Patwari Halka No.51 of village Morar, Tashil and District Gwalior. A piece of land (plot) of the area of 2280 sq.ft in the said survey number was sold by the defendant/respondent no.1 through his power of attorney, Kailash Narayan Soni to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.57,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 21.4.1995. The dimensions of the land have been mentioned in the sale deed. At the time of execution of the sale deed, a rough lay-out plan was shown by the holder of power of attorney to the plaintiff with an assurance that after it's sanction, the land will be developed and the possession of the Plot No.105 and 106 will be delivered to him. It was further disclosed that the delivery of possession is mentioned in the sale deed in a formal manner and the delivery of actual possession was promised to be effected only after sanction of the lay out plan. Accordingly, the plaintiff got the registered sale deed executed after making payment of the entire consideration to the tune of Rs.57,000/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff got his name mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 30.6.1998 passed in Case No.66/28.5.1998. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant did not handover sanctioned lay-out plan to the plaintiff in spite of his having demanded it several times and further, did not handover the possession of the plot purchased by him. On insistence, the defendant showed a piece of land as plot No.105 and 106. Accordingly, when the plaintiff reached the spot on 12.3.1998 for excavating it for the purpose of foundation, he was opposed by one Mohan Singh on the ground that the piece of land was owned by latter. On inquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the piece of land shown to him was a part of survey no.4140 and not in survey No.4139. In view of this, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 17.3.2000 through his Advocate demanding thereby, the delivery of actual possession after duly locating the purchased plot of land. The defendant did not respond to it. So the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, handing over possession or refund of the consideration of sale.