RAJA RAM Vs. RAVINDER KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from alienating the suit property to any other person and further restraining all the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell, with defendant No.1 on 23.3.1993, regarding a plot of a shop for a consideration of Rs.65,000/-. The agreement to sell, apart from being signed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1, was attested by Shri PS Randhawa, Advocate and defendant No.2 i.e. the husband of defendant No.1. A power of attorney was also executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff on 23.3.1993 and the same was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Karnal. It was pleaded that no last date was fixed for executing the sale-deed and the possession was also handed over to the plaintiff and accordingly, the case of the plaintiff was covered under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff further pleaded that it had come to his knowledge that a sale-deed dated 16.12.1998 had already been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 qua the plot in question. Accordingly, it was pleaded that such sale-deed is a fictitious document and had been got executed so as to defraud with the plaintiff, and it will not adversely affect the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had requested defendant No.1 to execute the saledeed in terms of the agreement to sell dated 23.3.1993, but the matter had been deferred on one pretext or the other. The defendants having refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff, resultantly, the suit had been instituted.

(3.) Upon notice, defendants No.1 and 2 took a stand that the suit had been filed at the instance of one Shri PS Bishnoi, who had been posted as Tehsildar at Karnal from 9.7.1991 to 15.4.1994 in collusion with Shri Preet Mohinder Singh, Advocate of Pehowa. It was averred that the two persons aforementioned had approached defendant No.2 in connection with agricultural land belonging to the deceased father of defendant No.1 and had demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the mutation of the same in favour of defendant No.1. The amount was finalized and the same was to be paid after the mutation and for purposes of security. The Tehsildar had obtained the signatures of defendants No.1 and 2 on blank stamp papers and had also obtained a power of attorney from them. As such, it was pleaded that an alleged agreement to sell had been fabricated and the plaintiff is totally unknown to defendants No.1 and 2. The possession was not handed over to the plaintiff at any point of time. The execution of agreement to sell accordingly was denied in totality.