HARTOOM SINGH Vs. RAMCHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11/5/2004 in Civil Appeal No. 16 -A/2003 confirming the judgment and decree dated 8/4/2003 in Civil Suit No. 117 -A/2000. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit inter alia contending that he is an illiterate villager and agriculturist. He had taken loan of Rs. 1,000/ - from defendant no. 1 and, therefore, had mortgaged his agricultural land admeasuring 1.045 hectare falling in survey no. 3/2 in village Guchrai, Tahsil Ashoknagar, however, defendant no. 1 taking advantage of ignorance of plaintiff got an instrument executed on 24/5/1976 in front of Sub -Registrar, Stamp, Ashoknagar. It is submitted that he never intended to sale the suit land, in fact he offered to repay the loan amount, but the same was denied by defendant no. 1. Having apprehension as regards misrepresentation by defendant no. 1, plaintiff inquired about the suit land in the office of Sub -Registrar, Stamp, on 16/3/1992 and after obtaining certified copy thereof, he had come to know that his apprehension was correct, as defendant no. 1 though persuaded the plaintiff to sign the mortgage deed, but in fact the same was a sale deed, however, plaintiff claimed that he continues to be in possession over the suit land and, therefore, no sooner did he come to know about the fact of alleged sale deed dated 24/5/1976, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 7/5/1992.

(3.) ON aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon critical evaluation of evidence on record dismissed the suit inter alia holding that, (i) plaintiff failed to establish that on 24/5/1976 he had not executed the alleged sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1 and he had only mortgaged the suit land; and, (ii) defendant no. 1 has established that he has acquired title by virtue of sale deed dated 24/5/1976. The trial court has also found the suit as barred by time, as the sale deed sought to be declared as null and void was executed on 24/5/1976, whereas suit was filed on 7/5/1992, as limitation to seek declaration of a sale deed null and void is three years in terms of Article 56 of the Limitation Act. On appeal, the first appellate court re -appreciated the entire evidence on record and found that the suit filed in the year 1992 i.e. after about 16 years from the date of execution of sale deed dated 24/5/1976 is barred by time for which there is no explanation much less plausible explanation. The first appellate court after critically analyzing oral evidence led by the plaintiff in paras 15 to 18 found that the evidence led as regards plaintiff's assertion that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale, suffers from inherent contradictions and inconsistencies and, therefore, plaintiff failed to establish that he had not executed the registered sale deed dated 24/5/1976 in favour of defendant no. 1. On the other hand, defendant no. 1 has proved the factum of execution of sale deed by examining the attesting witness as well discussed in paras 19 to 21 of the judgment. In para 21 the first appellate court has discussed manipulation sought to be done by the plaintiff to justify the fact that the suit land is of his title and ownership. Lagan receipts submitted by the plaintiff were found to have been prepared at one point of time. There is no mention of survey numbers and dates and the same have been found to be fraudulently prepared. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the findings of the trial court.