MAHA SINGH Vs. VEDO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants who were defendant Nos. 4 and 5 before the trial Court have filed the instant appeal, challenging the judgment and decree of the Courts below, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent directing defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (now respondents Nos. 2 to 4) to get the sale deed dated 20-4-1998 regarding the suit property registered in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 with a further decree for declaration to the effect that the orders dated 17-9-1998 and 18-9-2000 passed by the Revenue Authorities were illegal and not binding upon his rights and further declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 29-11-1999 executed by Smt. Usha Rani on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 regarding the suit land in favour defendants Nos. 4 and 5 (now appellants) is illegal null and void and is liable to be set aside with a further decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 (appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) over the suit land.

(2.) As per averments made in the suit, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 along with Usha Rani, Lalita, Darshana and Vijay Lakshmi were holders of land measuring 88 kanals 0 marla in equal shares as per the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 situated in the revenue estate of village Basahra, Tahsil Samalkha, Distt. Panipat. Out of this land, Usha Rani, Lalita, Darshana Rani and Vijay Lakshmi sold their share to the extent of 50/88 share i.e. 50 kanals to Krishan Kumar and Naresh Kumar (sons of the plaintiff) vide sale deed dated 13-12-1996. The possession was accordingly delivered to them at the time of execution of sale deed itself. On 19-4-1998, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 through their mother and Court guardian Usha Rani entered into an agreement to sell the share of minor defendant Nos. 1 to 3, out of the aforesaid land of 88 kanals 0 marla which comes out to be 754/1760 share measuring i.e. 37 kanals 14 marlas with the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The sale consideration was paid to Usha Rani on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 at their residence on 20-4-1998 and on the same day, a sale deed of this property was executed which was scribed by the scribe and after accepting the contents of the same as correct. Usha Rani appended her thumb mark over the same and also in the register of the scribe in the presence of witnesses. It was also mentioned in the said sale deed that the actual physical possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff.

(3.) It is the further case of the plaintiff that the sale deed could not be registered and the plaintiff filed an application dated 20-8-1998 before the Sub-Registrar, Samalkha, with a prayer for direction to Usha Rani mother and guardian of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for getting the sale deed dated 20-4-1998 registered in the name of the plaintiff. On issuance of notice, Smt. Usha Rani did not appear and the Sub-Registrar, Samalkha refused to register the sale deed dated 20-4-1998 vide his order dated 17-9-1998.