SHEO SINGH Vs. JAGMAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal has been brought by the plaintiff who could not succeed before the trial court as well as the first appellate court. The plaintiff -appellant brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 31.5.2002 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of plot measuring 967 sq. yards [8700 sq. feet] situated at village Patrehri, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, properly detailed in the headnote of the plaint [for short, "the suit property"] for a consideration of Rs. 1,16,500/ - is illegal, null and void, non est and is liable to be set -aside being a sham transaction and the plaintiff and his family members are the owners and in actual physical possession of the suit property. He has also sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from interfering in his peaceful and lawful possession over the suit property and from dispossessing him forcibly or illegally. The plaintiff has claimed that he and his family members were owners in actual physical possession of the suit property. The suit property was claimed to be used for parking trolleys, harrows and putting manure etc. Defendant no. 1 was never owner nor was ever in possession of the suit property. The sale deed executed by him of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 2 is claimed to be illegal, null and void, NON EST and not binding on the plaintiff. After the sale deed dated 31.5.2002, defendant No. 2 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and others which is pending. The plaintiff filed written statement in the said suit and the court ordered the parties in the same to maintain status quo. Local Commissioner was appointed thereafter who also supported the case of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff requested the defendants to cancel the said sale deed, but to no effect and hence, the suit.

(2.) CONTESTING the suit, the defendants have denied the plaintiff to be owner or in possession of the suit property. It is claimed that defendant No. 1 had been in possession of the suit property before partition of the country and was using the same for the purposes ancillary to agriculture. It is claimed that while selling the suit property, defendant No. 1 delivered possession of the same to defendant No. 2 and thereafter defendant No. 2 is owner in possession of the same. It is further claimed that before execution of the sale deed, defendant No. 1 had sold away over half a dozen fully grown kikkar trees from the suit property. The plaintiff is denied to have any concern with the suit property and, hence, suit was prayed to be dismissed.

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD