GAJO Vs. KANWAR RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff/appellant by way of this regular second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1984 passed by the learned lower appellate court vide which suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration was ordered to be dismissed, by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.

(2.) Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration, that she was owner in possession of the suit land as detailed in the head-note of the plaint in pursuance to registered sale deed dated 6.6.1975. Pleaded case of the plaintiff/appellant was that Respondent/defendant No. 1 was owner in possession of land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas. He sold the suit land vide sale deed executed on 6.6.1975 and registered on 3.7.1975 for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only). Vendor handed over the possession of the suit land. At the time of sale land measuring 3 kanals 8 marlas was under mortgage with possession with defendants Nos. 3 and 4 for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The said amount was retained by the plaintiff for redemption whereas the remaining land was under mortgage with defendants Nos. 5 and 6 for Rs. 16000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only). The said amount was also retained and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) in cash to the defendant. The plaintiff claimed to have become owner of the entire suit land.

(3.) It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 in collusion with the office of Sub- Registrar made interpolation in the sale deed, and added in hand that he sold 1/3rd share of the suit land. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendants Nos. 5 to 7 got the land measuring 47 kanals 1 marlas redeemed out of the suit land and defendant No. 5 to give the actual possession to defendant No. 1. Defendant claimed that he had sold only 1/3rd share of the suit land to the plaintiff and 1/3rd share was transferred to defendant No. 8, by way of gift. This was denied by the plaintiff on the ground that defendant No. 1 had no right to gift away the land which was in the ownership of the plaintiff/appellant. Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 being minors, were sued through their father defendant No. 7 who had no adverse interest to that of minors. Defendants having refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff, the suit was filed to claim ownership.