TEJA SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 9022-C of 2007

(2.) The brief facts of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit alleging therein that he was owner in possession of the suit land. He had actually borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the respondent, who succeeded in getting the execution of the agreement to sell on 30.11.1982 in his favour from him. Subsequently, the defendant-respondent filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement dated 30.11.1982 which was dismissed by the Court of Sub Judge, Nakodar on 1.3.1985. Appeal filed by the defendant-respondent against the aforesaid decree was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.1987. RSA No. 1179 of 1987 filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by this Court on 19.1.1993 and even the Special Leave Petition filed by him was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) It is the further case of the plaintiff-appellant that the respondent deposited remaining amount of agreement to sell, after taking permission from the Sub Judge, Nakodar. Thereafter, he filed an execution and the sale deed was executed through the Court in favour of the defendant-respondent on 6.3.1995 in which mode of payment was mentioned as Rs. 15,000/- on 30.11.1982, Rs. 15,000/- on 11.1.1983, Rs. 8600/- on 15.5.1993 and the sale deed was executed and registered before the Sub Registrar, Shahkot. Subsequently, the mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the respondent who took the possession in execution proceedings. When the plaintiff-appellant came to the Court for withdrawal of the deposited amount, the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Nakodar issued a cheque of Rs. 23,000/- in his favour. However, when the plaintiff went to the Treasury Office for encashment, he came to know that Rs. 15,000/- were already withdrawn by the defendant- respondent on 12.11.1987 and thus, the sale deed was got executed and registered by giving false particulars as the defendantrespondent failed to disclose this fact at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. So the sale deed dated 6.3.1995 was false, fake and inoperative being without consideration and was liable to be declared null and void. The respondent was threatening to alienate the suit property in favour of any third person and thus, the present suit for declaration and joint possession was filed.