NIKKA SINGH Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated February 2, 1963, by the defendants.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that Nikka Singh defendant sold the land in dispute to the plaintiff on September 12, 1953 for a sum of Rs. 2. 500/- and received Rupees 1,500/- in cash. It was recorded in a resolution which was signed by the defendant. The plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property after the sale. He has prayed that a decree for declaration that the defendant had sold his one-half share in the said land, be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The suit has been contested by Nikka Singh, defendant No. 1, He denied the allegations of the plaintiff and stated that he never sold this land to him (plaintiff ). He had been in joint possession of the suit land along with the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not pay him the share of the profits arising out of the land and he instituted a suit for recovery thereof in the Revenue Court. One of the issises in that case was regarding the ownership of the land in dispute. That issue was decided in favour of the answering defendant. That judgment of the Revenue Court operates as res judicaita between the parties. (The trial Court held that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit land by purchase from Nikka Singh, defendant and that the judgment of the Revenue Court does not operate as res judicata between the parties. Consequently, it decreed suit of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. He has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, to this Court.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no sale was effected by the appellant in favour of respondent No. 1. He further submits that the resolution Exhibit P-5 dated September 12, 1953 during the consolidation proceedings on the basis of which respondent No. 1 claimed to have become owner of the land in dispute, is not admissible into evidence for want of registration.