JAGGA SINGH Vs. MAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' regular second appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner to the extent of 1/3rd share of land measuring 7 Bighas 8 Biswas Pukhta comprised in Khewat No. 126 Khatauni No. 154, Khasra Nos. 838, 839 and 853 with structures of house existing thereon with all rights appurtenant thereto and is also owner of 1/3rd share of land measuring 1b-1b-9b comprised in Khewat No. 126 Khatauni No. 155 and 156, Khasra No. 331 min. (0-12-9) and khasra No. 331 min (0-9-0) situated in village Issewal. In addition thereto, he is owner to the extent of 1/3rd share measuring 7 Biswas comprised in khewat No. 126 Khatauni No. 157 Khasra No. 332/2 situated at village Issewal and that the Khasra Nos. have been fraudulently got entered by the defendants in their names in the registered sale deed dated 5. 1. 1981. According to the case of the plaintiff, he intended to part with his holding situated on the northern side of the Rajwaha whereas in the sale deed land situated on the Southern side of the Rajwaha stands mentioned in the impugned sale deed. In fact, at the spot on this land existed the houses of the plaintiff as well as other co-sharers. The plaintiff did not intend to part with the land situated on the Southern sides of Rajwaha and this has been got incorporated fraudulently by the defendants in connivance with the petition writer in the impugned sale deed.

(2.) THE defendants in their written statement resisted the claim of the plaintiff stating therein that the plaintiff agreed to part with the land as finds mentioned in the sale deed for a valuable consideration. Pursuance to the registration of the sale deed, mutation too has been sanctioned and ever since then they are enjoying the property purchased to the exclusion of others. The defendants specifically denied the assertion of the plaintiff that the sale was intended to be in respect of the property situated on the northern side of the Rajwaha. The plea raised by the plaintiff that wrong Khasra Nos. have been incorporated in the sale deed too has been specifically denied. By way of preliminary objection, it has been stated that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and otherwise too the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit.

(3.) THE trial court took up issues No. 1, 2 and Additional Issue No. 1a together and after considering the evidence led by the parties found some substance in the plea of the plaintiff to the effect that wrong khasra Nos. had been incorporated in the sale deed fraudulently and so the sale deed is liable to be set aside. This way the Court decided all the three issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue No. 4 was decided against the defendants. Under issue No. 3, the Court came to the conclusion that the suit is within limitation. Resultantly, the suit was decreed.