KESHO RAM Vs. CHETAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lessee/defendant No. 2 has come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court reversing, on appeal, those of the trial judge holding that the lease was a sham transaction.

(2.) THE facts : Respondent No. I/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the lease deed dated August 24, 1960, executed by Jagan Nath and Wasu Ram, original owners of the property in suit, in favour of the appellant/ defendant No. 2 and respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1, was a sham and fictitious transaction. The original owners sold the suit property to the plaintiff, vide registered sale deed, dated October 26, 1960. On August 24, 1960, they leased out the suit land to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for 99 years on an annual rent of Rs. 500. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the transaction of lease was only a sham and fictitious transaction and was created to circumvent the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Defendant No. 1 is the husband of the sister of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is son-in-law of Chunghar Mal, uncle of the plaintiff. The lease deed was created with an express understanding that the plaintiff will retain possession of the suit property and the lease will be only a paper transaction.

(3.) THE suit was resisted only by defendant No. 2/appellant. He pleaded that the suit land was jointly purchased by the father of the plaintiff and Wasu Ram, son of Chunghar Mal in the name of the plaintiff who was only a benamidar. One half share of the property was purchased by Ditta Ram subject to the leasehold rights of the defendants. He denied that the lease was a sham transaction.