HUKAM CHAND Vs. RAM DIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.1986 passed by learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Panipat whereby suit for possession filed by respondent-plaintiff has been decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.1987 passed by learned District Judge, Karnal whereby appeal preferred by appellants-defendants has been dismissed. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the suit.

(2.) The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that the plaintiff was a 'dohlidar' of land measuring 16 kanals 8 marlas, situated in village Matlauda, Tehsil Panipat, fully described in para 1 of plaint. The plaintiff executed two sale deeds with regard to said land in favour of the defendants on 11.05.1973 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. The plaintiff challenged the sale deeds on ground of fraud. It was pleaded that in fact, the plaintiff had given the land on lease for five years to the defendants, but they had fraudulently got executed the sale deeds in their favour. The plaintiff was only a 'dohlidar' of the said land and he had no right to alienate the same. It was further pleaded that the sale deeds are void, ab initio, therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for possession of the suit land.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendants resisted the suit and filed written statement. It was pleaded that the defendants had not played any fraud upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff had executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendants after knowing its contents and without any pressure. Otherwise also, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit; the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit; suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties and cause of action and also barred by limitation.