NATHU RAM Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having been non suited by both the learned courts below in his suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction, plaintiff has filed instant regular second appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in para 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that defendant was his relative. In the second week of month of October 1996, plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the defendant on interest and defendant asked him in June 1998 to execute the mortgage deed in his favour regarding half acre of land for which the plaintiff agreed. However, defendant got prepared a sale deed regarding the sale of half acre of land instead of mortgage deed by way of misrepresentation in connivance with the witnesses and played a fraud upon the plaintiff. It was alleged that the sale deed was illegal, null and void and without consideration. It was pleaded that plaintiff came to know about the sale deed when he approached the defendant in the last week of December 2003, in order to get the land redeemed by offering the mortgage money to the defendant. It was also alleged that thereafter, the plaintiff convened a Panchayat, wherein the defendant agreed vide an agreement, to deliver back the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff in case the plaintiff return the double amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-. It was alleged that thereafter the request of plaintiff made to the defendants to admit his claim did not yield any result, rather, the defendant gave a threat to alienate the suit property to some other person. On the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement by alleging that the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on interest from the defendant but he did not return the same amount. It was alleged that separate payment was made to the plaintiff for the purpose of mortgage in addition to Rs. 50,000/- as mentioned. However, the mortgage was by Darshan Singh son of Natha Ram regarding the land compromised in Khasra No.62//9 min (4-0) for consideration of Rs. 40,000/-, but the land was not got redeemed till date and it was in possession of the defendant. It was alleged that the sale deed dated 16.6.1998 was prior to the AMIT KUMAR agreement of mortgage. The plaintiff himself executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant in the presence of the witnesses and while appearing before the Sub Registrar, Samana after receiving the sale consideration. It was averred that the defendant was in possession of the suit land. Denying all other averments made in the plaint, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.