HARDEEP SINGH Vs. LAKHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -respondents filed the instant suit seeking the following relief:

(2.) IN the plaint, it was averred that defendant No.1 -Kehar Singh and one Chhota Singh, sons of Pakhar Singh were owners in possession in equal share to the extent of 2/3rd share in the suit land measuring 65 kanals 2 marlas and 26 kanals as detailed in the heading of the plaint. Defendant No.1 -Kehar Singh and Chhota Singh sons of Pakhar Singh were unmarried and issueless. Chhota Singh had died. With regard to the suit land, Kehar Singh -defendant No.1 and Chhota Singh got passed a judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993 in Suit No.371 of 30.7.1993 in their favour vide which the plaintiffs became owners in possession in equal shares to the extent of 2/3rd share of the suit land. Defendant No.1 and Chhota Singh had no concern with the suit land. However, defendants No.2 to 5 in connivance with defendant No.1 and in order to cause damage to the plaintiffs, have got executed a sale deed of 1/3rd share out of suit land measuring 65 kanals 2 marlas vide sale deed No.1631 dated 18.12.1997. The said sale deed is wrong, illegal and without consideration and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs and was liable to be set aside. The said sale deed was registered by the Sub Registrar, Lehragaga whereas village Gidarani is situated in Sunam Tehsil. As such, the Sub Registrar, Lehragaga had attested the said sale deed with the connivance of the defendants illegally. On the basis of the above said sale deed, defendants No.2 to 5 have got mutation No.3196 sanctioned in their favour with the connivance of the Revenue Authorities. Though the plaintiffs had sent application through post to Halqa Patwari and Naib Tehsildar not to attest the sale deed as defendants No.2 to 5 have kidnapped defendant No.1 and they wanted to get executed the sale deed in their favour illegally yet mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 and the same was liable to be set aside. Now defendant No.1 further wants to alienate 1/3rd share out of 26 kanals on the basis of wrong entries and the remaining defendants want to get the entry of sale deed in the revenue record wrongly and further want to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Hence, necessity arose to file the present suit.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of defendants No.2 to 5 certain legal objections were raised. On merits, it was averred that Kehar Singh had sold his 1/3rd share to the answering defendants vide a sale deed dated 18.12.1997 for a consideration of Rs.2,80,000/ - and the said amount was received by Kehar Singh, before the execution of sale deed, in the presence of witnesses. However, it was admitted that Kehar Singh was unmarried and issueless and Chhota Singh had died. It was further alleged that the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993 was fictitious, wrong, illegal and nullity. The alleged decree was unregistered and plaintiffs had no pre -existing rights in the suit property. Neither any mutation was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs nor any notice was given to them. The defendants were owners in possession to the extent of share of Kehar Singh as per the sale deed dated 18.12.1997 which was valid and purchased on payment of valuable consideration. Any connivance of the Revenue Authorities was denied. The story of abduction of Kehar Singh was also denied. It was alleged that Kehar Singh himself executed the sale deed in their favour after admitting it correct and got the same registered by appearing before Joint Sub Registrar, Lehragaga. It was stated that sale deeds of Gidarani village used to be executed by Joint Sub Registrar, Lehragaga. Thus, defendants No.2 to 5 were bona fide purchasers and their title was protected under Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act and the suit was liable to be dismissed. Defendants No.2 to 5 also filed counter claim against the plaintiffs seeking declaration to the effect that earlier Kehar Singh was owner in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit land measuring 65 kanals 2 marlas which he had sold in their favour vide sale deed dated 18.12.1997 and they were owners in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit land and the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993 was fraudulent and fictitious and is not binding on their rights and the said decree was liable to be set aside.