JAGSER SINGH Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Jagser Singh son of Inder Singh, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit, against the judgment and decree of the appellate court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Ram Singh.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit for a declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of Khasra Nos. 280/18/5 and 290/24/1 as entered in Jamabandi of the year 1968-69 in village Himmatpura, Tehsil Moga and that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from interfering with his possession. According to the plaintiff, the above mentioned land was intended to be sold by Lal Singh Defendant No. 1 vide sale deed dated 27.8.1957 Exhibit P.2. It has further been averred in the plaint that by mistake the land was described as Killa Nos. 18/2 out of Rectangle No. 280 and Killa No. 24/2 out of Rectangle No. 290. According to the plaintiff the sale, deed contained a recital that the land sold to the plaintiff was under mortgage with Chanan Singh and that Killa numbers so wrongly mentioned in the sale deed were actually not under mortgage and that Lal Singh was not the owner of the Killa numbers incorporated in the sale deed and as such the intention of Lal Singh vendor was to sell the suit land and not Killa No. 18/2 out of Rectangle No. 280 and Killa No. 24/2 out of Rectangle No. 290 It is further the case of the plaintiff that he actually got the land redeemed which was mortgaged with Chanan Singh. There was again a mistake committed at the time of redemption as it was shown in the receipt that the plaintiff had purchased the mortgagee's rights. The case of the plaintiff, in short, before the trial Court was that on account of mutual mistake of fact, wrong numbers were mentioned in the sale deed whereas the intention of Lal Singh was to sell the land described in the heading of the plaint, the possession of which was given to him., The case of the defendant-appellant before the trial Court was that he purchased the suit land through registered sale deed from Lal Singh and that he was a bona fide purchaser. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was described to be void and illegal. The claim of the plaintiff Ram Singh being in possession of the suit land was denied. Defendant No. 3 Mohinder Singh who has not filed the present appeal alleged that he had purchased some land out of the suit land. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff whereas in appeal, the suit has been decreed reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. As has been observed above, defendant No. 2 has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, it is mentioned at the threshold that the land regarding which decree has been claimed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 would be referred to as land intended to be sold, whereas, the land in Khasra numbers mentioned in, the sale deed would be referred to as the land recited in the sale deed. This is being done in order to avoid repetition of Khasra numbers.