BALARAM AGASTI Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment delivered in two independent suits and, therefore, both the second appeals shall be disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE present appellants were defendants in Title Suit No. 231 of 1967 instituted on 3-11-1962. That suit was one for demarcation of properties and a decree for injunction restraning the defemdants from interfering with the property demareated to belong to the phintiffs. The plaintiffs claim-ed that by a decree given in this Court in Second Appeal No. 152 of 1951 as reviewed by Civil Review no. 1 of 1955 on 21-12-'57 they obtained 1. 40 acres and the defendants got 33 decimals. There were various libations between the parties, and the defendants with a view to harassing the plaintiffs, interfered with the boundaries of the plaintiffs land and cut and removed the demarcating boundary on the east on 281-1962. The suit was, therefore, instituted for demarcation and permanent injunction. The defendants in their written statement in the said suit disputed the alienation of interference with the boundary of the plaintiffs. But they indicated that they had no objection to demarcation through court.

(3.) WHILE that suit was pending it is alleged that on 6-4-1964 parties entered into a compromise in the presence of bhadraloks and it was agreed that the disputed property Would be sold to the defendants of this suit for a consideration of Rs. 1,300 -. / The plaintiffs are said to have purchased the stamp through defendant no. 1 on 6-4-1964. The sale deed was executed on the same day and was registered. It was stipulated that the consideration money would be paid to the plaintiffs on their endorsing the registration ticket in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs, however, omitted to endorse the ticket even when the payment was offered. On 1-5-1964 the plaintiffs executed and registered a cancellation deed falsely alleging that the consideration was Rs. 3,000/- and not Rs. 1,300/- and the defendants had omitted to offer the consideration money as stipulated. The defendants deported the amount of Rs. 1,300/- and instituted Title Suit No. 305 of 1964 on 3-10-1964 asking for a declaration of their title to the disputed property (1. 40 acres) on the basis of the sale deed dated 6-4-1964 and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs of the earlier suit who are defendants in this suit denied the validity of the sale deed, pleaded that the consideration money was Rs. 3,000/- and not Rs. 1,300/-; the compromise which gave rise to the sale deed was to the effect that all disputes between the parties would be settled and in fact on the self-same day there was a sale deed executed by the plaintiffs of the subsquent suit in favour of the defendants which would go to show that an elaborate arrangement had been envisaged which brought about the sale deed. Since the entire arrangement was not accepted by the plaintiffs of the subsequent suit they were not entitled to claim benefit under the sale deed de hors the other aspects. It was emphatically pleaded that giving effect to the sale deed merely would not reflect the true intention of the parties and as such, the court should not enforce the sale deed.