AJMER SINGH Vs. CHAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 598 and 599 of 1990 as the question of law and fact which arise in both these appeals is the same.

(2.) CHAND Singh and others filed suit for possession on the basis of judgment and decree dated 6. 1. 1926 passed by the appellate Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 44 and 50 of 1925 in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1923 and decree in Civil Suit No. 106 of 1925 decided by the Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur, on 3. 4. 1922. As per averments made in the plaint, Tara Singh sold the land measuring 410 Kanals 18 Marias on 28. 3. 1916 for on ostensible price of Rs. 20,500/ -. Tara Singh sold another 100 Kanals of land on 9. 4. 1919. Tara Singh was jat agriculturist and governed by customary law of Punjab under which the last male proprietor could not alienate his ancestral land without consideration and legal necessity. Tara Singh was issueless. The sales were challenged in the aforementioned suit which was decreed by the Court declaring the sales to be null and void with the further stipulation that the plaintiffs or their successors shall not be entitled to get possession when succession opens except on payment of Rs. 15507/ -. Tara Singh died on 15. 2. 1983 at Rewa (Madhya Pradesh ). Since the decree enures for the benefit of near heirs of Tara Singh on his death, plaintiffs claimed possession of the land in accordance with the terms of the decree. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the vendees sold their shares to the defendants who have been impleaded for the necessary relief. With these broad averments, plaintiffs sought possession on the basis of decree mentioned above.

(3.) CONTESTING defendants put in appearance and filed written statement. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed joint written statement and defendants Nos. 4 to 36 filed separate written statement. Proforma defendants admitted the claim of the plaintiffs, Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 by way of preliminary objections asserted that they have purchased the land on 5. 7. 1956 vide registered sale deed and, in fact, bona fide purchaser for value and so plaintiffs are not entitled to possession of the suit land. Secondly that they have effected improvement upon the land by investing about Rs. 10,000/- and have also installed a tubewell. Otherwise also, the possession of the answering defendants is open, hostile, without interruption; that the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred as Tara Singh has died much before 15. 2. 1983. On merits also, the averments made in the plaint were denied and it was reasserted that Tara Singh s/o Partap Singh died more than 8 years back. He became Sadhu in his young age and renounced the world and died before the natural death civilly. The entry made in the record about his death at Rewa is wrong and that the document is fabricated. Similarly, defendants Nos. 4 to 36 also took almost identical preliminary objections that they have effected improvements upon the land by installing tubewell and that the certificate produced to prove the death of Tara Singh is a fabricated document. In addition thereto, it has been stated that no entry was made about the alleged conditional decree dated 20. 12. 24 in the revenue record. It was also averred that both the suits are hit by the principle of Champarty and these deserve to be dismissed. On merits too, it was stated that the plaintiffs were able to manage false entries recorded in the Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Rewa. According to the defendants, in fact, entries in various documents have been fabricated so as to bring the suit within period of limitation.