KABAL SINGH Vs. PARMOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for possession of the agricultural land was dismissed, but was decreed for the recovery of Rs. 1,689.50, only.

(2.) THE Plaintiff purchased the land vide sale deed, copy, Exhibit P. 1, from Defendants Nos. 4 and 5, i.e., Shrimati Gurdeep Kaur and Gurbachan Singh. By virtue of the said sale deed, the vendors also sold the land belonging to the minors without the permission of the guardian Court. The minors then filed the suit for possession against the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 4 and 5. That suit was decreed. In execution thereof, they got possession of the land which was illegally sold by Defendants Nos. 4 and 5. The Plaintiff filed the present suit on January 4, 1972, for possession of the land measuring 10 kanals 11 marlas which had gone out of his possession on account of the suit filed by the minors and decreed against them. In the alternative, it was also prayed that the Plaintiff's suit be decreed for the recovery of Rs. 1,689.50 as the price of the land measuring 10 kanals 11 marlas. The trial Court came to the conclusion that in the sale deed, copy, Exhibit P. 1, itself, it was contemplated that in case the vendee suffers on any account and the land of the minors went out of his hands, he will be entitled to recover the amount of compensation equivalent to its sale price. Consequently, the suit was decreed for the recovery of Rs. 1,689.50 only. Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiff filed the appeal. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial court and further came to the conclusion that though the trial Court had decreed the Plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,689.50 only, which was the proportionate price of the land belonging to the minors, but as a matter of fact, he was not entitled to this amount also, for the reason that he had purchased the property of the minors when there was no order of the Court. According to him, under the circumstances, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any relief if the land had gone out of his possession, but since there was no cross -objection by Defendants Nos. 4 and 5, so the finding of the trial Court to this effect was also affirmed. Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiff has filed the second appeal in this Court.

(3.) THE sale deed, copy, Exhibit P. 1, clearly provides for the situation in case the land of the minors went out of the hands of the vendee. Under the said sale deed, the vendee is only entitled to the sale price thereof in that eventuality. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings of the Courts below as to be interfered with in second appeal.