JAGE Vs. NATHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No.3, who claims himself to be the bonafide purchaser of the suit land from defendants No.1 and 2, is in appeal before this Court challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffrespondents, against dismissal of their suit by the trial Court, has been accepted and the appellant and defendants No.1 and 2 have been restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs and defendants No.4 to 10 over the land in dispute.

(2.) AS per the averments made in the suit, Lala, Bhey Ram, Sheo Chand and Sundu sons of Peeru were the owners of agricultural land comprised in Khasra Nos.3610, 3616 and 3617 measuring 6 Bighas 6 Biswas (Pukhta) situated within the revenue estate of village Ismaila II. Sundu, referred to above, died issueless and according to the plaintiffs, Bhey Ram, father of Bhola Ram and brother of Sundu, had gone in adoption in village Buana with the result that Sheo Chand and Lala became owners of the land in dispute, and thus, according to the plaintiffs though Bhey Ram had gone into adoption, he and after his death his son Bhola Ram remained recorded in the revenue record in the column of ownership although they were neither in possession nor owners of the suit land. It is further their case that even Bhola Ram had filed a suit for accounts and profits of share in the land in the Court of Sub Judge, Rohtak on the basis of aforesaid wrong entries in the revenue record and the said suit was decreed. However, in appeal the judgment and decree of the Sub Judge was set aside and Bhola Ram was held not to be the owner of any share in the land, vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.1982 in case titled as 'Gugan and another v. Bhola Ram' decided by Sh.M.L. Jain, the then learned Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak with enhanced appellate powers. It is further case of the plaintiffs that Chandro and Jage, i.e. defendants No.1 and 2 (children of Bhola Ram son of Bhey Ram), in collusion with the revenue authorities got inserted their names in the revenue record without any right and therefore, the plaintiffs and defendants No.4 to 10 were not bound by the aforesaid entries. Further defendants No.1 and 2 have sold the land in dispute in favour of appellant No.2 i.e. defendant No.3 without actually having any share in the land. According to the plaintiffs, they were in peaceful possession of the suit property along with defendants No.4 to 10, whereas defendant No.3 on the basis of the sale deed was trying to interfere in their possession. Hence, necessity arose to file the instant suit.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 3, the relationship between the parties as per the pedigree table was admitted. It was further admitted that Sundu died issueless however, the averments made in the plaint with regard to adoption of Bhey Ram were denied. According to the defendants, Bhola son of Bhey Ram remained in possession as owner of the suit land to the extent of his share and after his death his legal heirs Chandro and Jage became owners in possession. It was further admitted that after the death of Chandro, Jage being her only legal heir remained in possession of the suit land to the extent of his share, which was earlier held by Bhola Ram and before him his father Bhey Ram. It is further case of the defendants that the land, which had fallen to the share of Jage and Chandro, was sold by them for a consideration of Rs. 10,000 vide registered sale deed in favour of Jagdish, who was also put in possession of the suit land and since then he is continuing to hold the land as owner as a bonafide purchaser for consideration; and thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.