PALA Vs. VIPAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Pala is in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9.10.1986 passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby appeal against judgment and decree dated 13.2.1985 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Panipat was accepted and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 9 kanals 12 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1973 -74 situated in revenue estate of village Ujha, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal. Plaintiff alleged that he was a co -sharer in possession to the extent of share in 19 kanals 4 marlas of land along with Manga, Jasrath and Bhopal, minor sons of Sultan, who were co -sharers in remaining share of the total land. Plaintiff was also minor and was under care and custody of his father. Father of the defendant, namely, Hari Singh had purchased share of land as mentioned in the suit for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/ - vide registered sale deed dated 23.6.1972 from Manga etc. through their mother Bharpai against which a suit for pre -emption was filed against father of the defendant and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against father of the defendant on 30.10.1976. Plaintiff further alleged that during pendency of aforesaid suit, Hari Singh, father of defendant, got a fictitious mutation No. 2237 dated 3.2.1975 sanctioned on the basis of exchange of share of the plaintiff with Bharpai, mother of Manga etc. with her land comprised in khewat No. 414 situated in village Ujha. The aforesaid act was done just to defeat the right of pre -emption of the plaintiff. Aforesaid mutation was held to be fictitious by the Civil Court. It was held by the Civil Court that the plaintiff had purchased separate land of Bharpai for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/ - and question of exchange did not arise.

(3.) JUST after the aforesaid fictitious exchange, defendant had purchased the suit land from Bharpai vide registered sale deed dated 9.12.1975 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/ -. Mutation was also sanctioned on 26.4.1976. Plaintiff further alleged that the alleged exchange of suit land by the plaintiff in favour of Bharpai and further sale by Bharpai in favour of defendant and mutation No. 2268 are fictitious, null and void.