ANOOP SINGH Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMNo.5470-C of 2020

(2.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dismissing an appeal filed by plaintiff-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, whereby suit filed by them (plaintiffs) for declaration, has been dismissed.

(3.) Anoop Singh etc.-plaintiffs (appellants herein) (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaration to the effect that earlier the suit land was owned and possessed by defendant Nos. 3 to 13 and they had agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiffs vide agreement dated 17.09.2007 at the rate of Rs.2,90,000/- per acre and received Rs.6,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiffs. Stipulated date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 03.03.2008. It is further stated that after payment of sale consideration, possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiffs and since then, they are owners in possession of the suit land. As per plaintiffs, they used to sell their agriculture produce through defendant No.1 for the last so many years and used to take loan in advance from him from time to time. On 03.03.2008, in good faith, plaintiffs took defendant No.1 along with them for execution and registration of the sale deed in their favour before the Sub Registrar, Nathusari Chopta, where plaintiffs paid entire sale consideration of Rs.21,09,000/- to defendant Nos.3 to 13 (as Rs.6,00,000/- had already been paid by them as earnest money). It was further stated that the plaintiffs were illiterate and at the time of execution and registration of sale deed, defendant No.1 had asked plaintiff-Anoop Singh to sign on some documents. At that time, sellers had also put their signatures on those documents. It was assured by defendant No.1 that the sale deed had been executed and registered in favour of plaintiffs and a receipt in original, was also handed over by defendant No.1 being issued by the office of Sub Registrar, Nathusari Chopta. Thereafter, defendant No.1 asked the plaintiffs to return back because the sale deed had been got registered accordingly before the Sub Registrar. Believing the assurance of defendant No.1, plaintiffs returned back to their houses along with defendant No.1. Later on, in the second week of May, 2008, plaintiffs came to know that the sale deed had been got obtained fraudulently in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2, thereby, they have committed a serious fraud and forgery. In this regard, plaintiffs made an application against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for committing fraud with them, but no action was taken thereon by the competent authority. Ultimately, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant Nos.1 and 2, which was sent to the Police Station under Section156 (3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, FIR No.145 dated 25.09.2008, under Sections 420/467/468/471/506/120-B IPC was registered against defendant Nos.1 and 2 at Police Station, Nathusari Chopta. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the instant suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned sale deed and subsequent revenue records, if any, entered and sanctioned on the basis of said sale deed, were wrong, incorrect, against law and facts, null and void and not binding on the valuable rights of the plaintiffs and were liable to be set aside.