RAJWATI Vs. NAND GOPAL BANGUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendantrespondents seeking declaration that General Power of Attorney dated 3.9.1991, sale deeds dated 5.9.1991 and 23.4.2004 were illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

(2.) As per the averments made in the suit, plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of agricultural land situated in village Bandhwari comprising in Khewat No.73, Khatoni No.229, Khasra No.630(1-16), Kita 1, measuring 1 Bigha 16 Biswas pukhta i.e. 5 Bighas 8 Biswas, Kham(Kaccha), for the last more than 60 years though Gram Panchayat and was shown to be its owner in the revene record. After consolidation in the year 2000-2001 new numbers in place of old numbers of land were allotted i.e. Khewat No.35, Kita 7 measuring 41 Kanals 8 Marlas -180/828 share measuring 9 Kanals 0 Marla. In the year 1991, Jagan Singh defendant No.3 approached plaintiff's father Kude and told him that he will take steps for getting ownership rights of Kude and obtained thumb impressions of Kude on certain papers. The aforesaid Jagan Singh by playing fraud got prepared power of attorney dated 3.9.1991, registered on 4.9.1991 vide vasika No.122, on the basis of said GPA, defendant No.3 sold the land immediately on 4.9.1991 to Nand Gopal Bangur defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed bearing No.977 dated 5.9.1991 for a fictitious price of Rs. 56,500/-. The plaintiffs or their father Kude was never informed by defendant No.3 of any sale of land. Thus, the plaintiffs have pleaded the aforesaid sale deed dated 5.9.1991 in favour of Nand Gopal Bangur-defendant No.1 was illegal, null and void. It was further pleaded that since there was no valid and legal title with Nand Gopal Bangur, hence the sale deed dated 23.4.2004 vide vasika No.237 in favour of defendant No.2 was also illegal, null and void. The mutation No.2994 in favour of Nand Lal Gopal Bangur-defendant No.1 was sanctioned on 6.5.2004 after a period of 13 years. It was further claimed that after the death of Kude, the possession of the disputed land came to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs who were in possession of the suit land for last more than 60 years, have become owners of the same because their possession was peaceful, never disturbed by anyone and was to the knowledge of all. Thus, their possession was adverse. It was alleged in the suit that the defendants came upon the suit land duly armed with their persons to take forcible possession, however, could not succeed. Hence the necessity arose to file the instant suit.

(3.) Upon notice, defendants No.1, 2 and 4 appeared. Defendant No.1 filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit land and have no right, title or interest therein. It was denied that defendant No.3 obtained the signatures and thumb impressions of plaintiff on blank papers. It was further denied that defendant No.3 played any fraud upon the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs never appointed him as their GPA. It was further stated that the sale deeds dated 5.9.1991 and 23.4.2004 were legal, valid and full of consideration. It was also stated that the mutation was rightly sanctioned in favour of answering defendant. However, later on defendant No.1 did not contest the suit and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.11.2007.