SAURABH Vs. MOHAKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Court of II ADJ, Bhind in Civil Appeal No. 16A of 2008, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2008 passed by the court of II Civil Judge, Class 2, Bhind in Civil Suit No. 100A of 2004 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaration of the sale deed as null and void against the respondents/defendants was dismissed holding that for want of relief of possession and being barred by limitation the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. In this appeal, the appellant is referred to as "plaintiff" and the respondents as "defendants". The admitted facts of the case are that the defendant No. 2 is father of plaintiff and brother of defendant No. 3 and the disputed land was sold by his father i.e. defendant No. 2 during minority of plaintiff on 22.12.1993. The defendants No. 2 to 4 were proceeded ex parte and no relief was claimed against them.

(2.) The facts in brief of the plaint are that the 1/2 part of the land in dispute bearing Khasra No. 67 area 136 Aare situated in village Badanpura (hereinafter would be referred to as "disputed land") owned by the plaintiff was sold by father and brother of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 22.12.1993 to the defendant No. 1 during his minority without prior permission of the Court. But in spite of that, the plaintiff remained in possession of it and since in the garb of illegal sale deed, the defendant No. 1 tried to dispossess the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant No. 1 for the relief stated herein above.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 filing written statement denied the plaint averments stating that the defendant No. 2 being Karta Khandan sold the land in dispute with the consent of plaintiff to meet the needs of the family and handed over possession of it and since then, he has been cultivating it. The suit was not filed within three years from the date of attaining majority by the plaintiff and now, since the prices of the land have gone up, the suit was got filed by the defendant No. 2 through the plaintiff and hence, it is not maintainable. Hence, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.