KHAN MOHAMMAD Vs. RAHISAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having failed in both the courts below, defendants have approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal, impugning the judgements and decrees of the learned trial court as well as learned first appellate court, whereby suit of the plaintiff for recovery was decreed by recording concurrent findings of facts.

(2.) Succinctly put, facts necessary for decision of the present appeal, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in para 2 of its impugned judgement, are that in the last week of June-2006, Sobat Khan Lambardar (respondent No.2 herein) approached plaintiff/respondent Rahisan and told that appellants wanted to sell their 15 marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of Firozepur-Namak, Tehsil Nuh, District Newat, at a low price, because they were in urgent need of money; that thereafter, respondent No.2 took the plaintiff/respondent and her husband to the appellants, who also told that they were to sell their 15 marlas of land; that subsequently, the appellants and respondent No.2 in collusion with each other went to respondent No.3 who was Patwari of village; that Patwari of the area handed over copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-02 in order to satisfy that the appellants were co-owners of 15 marlas of land in khewat No.423, Khatoni No.475, rectangle No.62, killa No.29(1-11), to the extent of half share which came to 15 marlas, as such, the appellants agreed to sell their 15 marlas of land for a sale consideration of Rs.3.00lacs and the plaintiff/respondent became ready to purchase the same. It was further contended that on 4/7/2006, the appellants executed a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff/respondent and obtained Rs.3.00lac as sale consideration; that the sale deed was registered by appellants in favour of plaintiff/respondent in the office of Joint-Sub-Registrar, Nuh and respondent No.2 had witnessed the execution of sale deed; that the plaintiff/respondent had spent Rs.21,000.00 on stamp paper plus miscellaneous expenses; that after getting the copy of sale deed, the plaintiff/respondent went to respondent No.3 for the purpose of mutation but respondent No.3 refused to enter the mutation and told that appellants were owner of only 3 marlas of land and as such the appellants and respondents No.2 and 3 in collusion with each other, got fabricated false revenue record/jamabandi and thereby cheated the appellants as co-owner of half share in the land with a view to cheating the plaintiff/respondent, while in fact, the appellants were owners of 3 marlas of land only; that since the appellants were not competent/authorized to sell 15 marlas of land because they were owners of only 3 marlas of land, all the appellants and respondents No.2 and 3, had committed the offence of cheating and fraud with the plaintiff/respondent; that the plaintiff had already reported the matter to authority for taking suitable action; that the sale deed dtd. 4/7/2006, was unauthorized, illegal, in valid so the defendants were liable to refund the entire sale consideration along with interest and damages.

(3.) Having been served, defendants appeared and filed their contesting written statement, raising more than one preliminary objections.