RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. BHOGIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.3.2000 passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Morena in Civil Suit No.34A of 1996 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff Raghunath Singh pertaining to the land bearing Survey No.3743/234 area one and half Bigha situated in Mauza Thara Tehsil Ambah District Morena for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed. In this appeal, the appellant is referred to as 'plaintiff' and respondents as 'defendants'.

(2.) The admitted facts in the case are that the land bearing Survey No.3743/234 area one and half Bigha Mauza Thara Tehsil Ambah District Morena which is called 'disputed land' in this case. The disputed land was owned by the defendant No.6 Jandel Singh.

(3.) The facts, in brief, of the plaint are that the plaintiff purchased the disputed land from the defendant no.6 vide registered sale deed dated 3.4.95 (Ex-P/1). After paying the consideration to the defendant No.6 the plaintiff obtained the possession of the disputed land. On 20.8.95 when the plaintiff went to the field for cultivating the same the defendant No. 1 and 2 restrained him and started quarreling with him on the pretext that the land is recorded in the name of their wives Shanti, Munnidevi and Urmila I.e. defendants no.3,4 and 5 on the basis of sale deed executed on 8.9.94 (Ex-P/24) by defendants no.1 and 2 in the garb of some so called Power of Attorney executed by the defendant no.6 Jandel Singh on 30.7.1994 (Ex-P/26) in their favour. On being asked from defendant No.6 he told him that he had executed the power of attorney in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 only for defending the suit bearing No.139A/92 pending before the court of Civil Judge Class II Ambah filed by his brother defendant No.9 Balaster Singh but he did not authorize the defendants No. 1 and 2 to sell the disputed property and by playing fraud the power of attorney was got doctored to get themselves authorized to sell the disputed land. On this, the plaintiff obtained certified copy on 26.8.95 of the sale deed executed by the so called Power of Attorney holders in favour of their wives from the Registrar Office. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants have no right in the disputed property on the basis of the sale deed (Ex-P/24).