NAZAR SINGH Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Karnal whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed. Briefly put the plaintiff purchased 9 bighas 11 biswas representing 1/9th share of 85 bighas 16 biswas situate in village Adhoya, tehsil Kaithal for a sum of Rs. 500/- from Nand Lal vide registered sale deed dated 17.7.1958. It is further case of the plaintiff that on account of consolidation of holdings in the village land measuring 22 kanals 8 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 21 Khatoni No. 25, square no. 48, killa No. 23, square No. 64, killa No. 3/1, 3/2 and 2/2, square No. 93, killa No. 8/3 as per jamabandi for the year 1957-58 was allotted in lieu of the above said land. Since mutation of land purchased had not been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs, the consolidation authorities allotted the land as detailed above in the name of Nand Lal. It is further stated by the plaintiff that Nand Lal taking undue advantage of this allotment in his favour soldthe land alongwith some other property vide registered sale deed dated 5.1.1965 to defendant No. 2. This sale in favour of defendant No. 2 was thus alleged to be wholly, illegal, void and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs and hence suit for declaration and possession.

(2.) Nand Lal, defendant No. 1, was given up by the plaintiff as unnecessary party. Defendant No. 2 put in appearance and filed written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) The lower appellate court on the basis of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant cannot take shelter under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The lower appellate court observed that neither the Patwari nor any official of the Registration Office has been produced in the witness box from the side of the appellant to substantiate the plea of the appellant in this regard. The lower appellate court further observed that at no time the plaintiff in any way gave an impression to the appellant that Nand Lal was an ostensible owner. Thus finding no merit in the contention raised by appellant, the appeal was dismissed.