MUKHTIAR LAL Vs. RATTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal.

(2.) A suit for possession of the house in dispute was filed by Thakur Dass, plaintiff (since dead-now represented by his legal representatives). He claimed that he was the owner of the house in dispute having purchased the same through a conveyance deed dated January 19, 1995 from the Rehabilitation Department. Defendant Rattan Chand was stated to be the son-in-law of the real brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff averred that aforesaid Rattan Singh contacted the plaintiff for taking the house in question on rent and accordingly the plaintiff agreed to lease out the same to the defendant at the rate of Rs. 25 per month. According to the plaintiff, on January 2, 1964 a lease deed was executed for a period of two years with regard to the aforesaid house. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant had been paying the rent of Rs. 25/- per month regularly till the year 1978 when the aforesaid Rattan Singh, defendant started proclaiming that he was the owner of the house. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that on January 2, 1964 defendant Rattan Singh had fraudulently got the sale deed executed of the house in question in his own favour. The plaintiff further averred that a fraud had been played upon him and as such the said sale deed dated January 2, 1964 was null and void and based upon fraud and misrepresentation and as such not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he filed a suit for possession, as aforesaid.

(3.) The defendant appeared and filed a written statement. He contested the claim of the plaintiff. He reiterated that he had become owner of the property in dispute through a registered sale deed dated January 2, 1964 duly executed by the plaintiff in his favour. It was asserted by the defendant that no fraud had even been played by the defendant upon the plaintiff. Actually at the time of execution of the sale deed, the house in dispute was in a damaged condition and he had renovated the same after carrying out extensive repairs by spending huge amount. All other averments made by the plaintiff were specifically denied by the defendant.