RAM ACHAL Vs. CHANDER PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 8626-C of 2015

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant herein claims that respondent No. 2 had good relations with the plaintiff since both were involved in the profession of construction of houses. Because of that proximity the plaintiff married the sister/relative of respondent No. Out of wedlock of the plaintiff and sister of respondent No. 2, defendant No. 1 was born. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that when defendant No. 1 was minor, the first wife-Saroj i.e. the mother of defendant No. 1 expired. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 somehow agreed to the second marriage but they had a grudge in their mind. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that he was in possession of a plot in dispute measuring 10 Marlas, on which later on house was constructed. However, the plaintiff was not the owner of the house but he was having a special power of attorney executed in his favour by one Subhash Chander. It is his further case that even Subhash Chander was not the owner of the property, he was also general power of attorney holder of one Vijay Sethi, who was the original owner. It is further claimed that after the second marriage of the plaintiff when the son; defendant No. 1 got major the defendants started having grudge against the step mother and therefore, they started pressurizing for transfer of the property in question to the son. Therefore, house was got transferred in the name of the son i.e. defendant No. 1 through fraudulent sale deed dated 18.10.1985. In this transaction, the plaintiff acted as a power of attorney of Subhash Chander since the house has not been formally transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Taking advantage of this fact, defendant No. 2 took the plaintiff to the office of Sub-Registrar under the garb of getting this house transferred in the name of the plaintiff/appellant. However, it was got transferred in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly. It is further pleaded that he never came to know about the nature of the transaction. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that thereafter defendant No. 1 sold his share to defendant No. 5 vide sale deed dated 9.11.2001. It is only thereafter that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the original sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and defendant No.2 as well as the subsequent sale deed dated 9.11.2001. It is further claimed that in the interregnum another suit was also filed by him for mandatory injunction in the year, 2002, which was ultimately withdrawn by him on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, he came to know that the impugned sale deed dated 18.10.1985 was got executed by defendant No. 2 fraudulently.

(3.) Parties led their evidence.