KISHAN CHAND Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 3.10.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which judgment and decree dated 15.11.1986 of the lower court, dismissing the suit of plaintiff Amar Singh, respondent herein, for seeking a decree for declaration claiming cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.5.1965 and mutation No.1384 in respect of the suit land, were reversed and, consequently, suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Sequelly, sale deed dated 10.5.1965 as also mutation No.1384 sanctioned thereafter in respect of the suit land were held to be void, ineffective and inoperative qua the right, title and interest of the plaintiff, respondent herein.

(2.) As per the case of the respondent/plaintiff, defendant Kishan Chand, appellant herein, had purchased land from him vide sale deed of 10.5.1965. At the time of delivery of possession to the defendant, it was discovered by the parties that the sale deed had inadvertently been effected in respect of unwanted Khasra numbers. The defendant had refused to take physical possession of the land. Sequelly, the parties mutually agreed to revoke the sale deed. Such settlement of the parties was caged in a document dated 23.12.1983. In terms of this agreement between the parties, a sale deed in respect of another land measuring 2 Kanals adjoining to the land of the defendant, was to be effected by the plaintiff and the defendant was not to act upon the mutation sanctioned in his name on the basis of sale deed dated 10.5.1965. When the defendant started drifting away from the settlement, the plaintiff had brought the suit for enforcement of the settlement made vide agreement dated 23.12.1983.

(3.) The defendant, appellant herein, had contested the suit tooth and nail and claimed the subsequent settlement of 23.12.1983 to be only a paper transaction. Legality and validity of sale deed as also of the mutation sanctioned thereto, was asserted. It is averred that possession of the suit land was delivered to the defendant who is now in actual possession thereof. Dismissal of the suit was sought.