MASSA SINGH Vs. HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal:-

(2.) The second appeal is by the plaintiff whose suit for declaration was decreed and in the appeal the judgment was reversed. The plaintiff claimed right to he suit property under a sale deed dated 15.4.1975 claiming the property as having been purchased by him for consideration of Rs. 28,000/-. The contention of the plaintiff was that the 1st defendant's vendor had earlier entered into an agreement of sale with him on 8.2.1975 in respect of all the properties and the sale itself was in pursuant to the agreement that had been earlier entered in his favour. The decree was sought against the defendants who claimed amongst other items, one item of the property in Khasra No. 13/2 (4 K 12M) and 13/1 (18M) in the same rectangle number and who had purchased the property on 17.2.1975 from the very same vendor. The trial court found that the defendants were the nephews of the plaintiff and being the residents of the same village, they ought to have known the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and they were lacking in bona fide while purchasing the property.

(3.) The appellate court reversed the decision in the appeal filed by defendants No. 2 and 3, who were the purchasers. The court found that he sale deed in favour of the defendants was anterior to the plaintiff's sale deed and if the defendants' right of purchase must be defeated, it could be done only on proving that the plaintiff's vendor had any right to the property which was claimed by the plaintiff. Adverting to the fact that the jamabandi for the relevant year contained reference only to Khasra No. 13/2 of the extent of 14 kanals 12 marlas, while the plaintiff was laying claim to the property in Khasra No. 13/1 in an extent of 3 kanals 12 marlas, the court found that there was not even a proof of entitlement of the 1st defendant to effect such a sale in favour of the plaintiff. In any event, the property purchased by the defendants could not be claimed by the plaintiff.