SOHNA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's Second Appeal whose suit for declaration was decreed by the trial Court but dismissed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff's claim is that originally the land measuring 14 kanals was owned by Mohammedans who mortgaged it with possession in favour of Surjan and Smt. Ishar Devi. After the partition of the country, the Competent Officer separated the evacuee interest, and thus, redeemed the land. It was then auctioned, free from all encumbrances, and one Bhana Ram, son of Jiwan Singh, purchased it in public auction for a sum of Rs. 1,575/-. Bhana Ram was put in possession of the land and then he sold it to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 1st September, 1967, for a sum of Rs. 4,500/-. The plaintiff got the actual possession of the land from the vendor. Since the Tehsildar (Sales) advertised this land to be sold again in public auction, he filed the present suit. The plaintiff also claimed that he was a bona fide purchaser of valuable consideration and the Tehsildar (Sales) had no right to auction this land. The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim and contested the suit. They admitted that the Competent Officer, vide his order dated 27th August, 1957, vested the land in dispute in favour of the Custodian, free from all encumbrances, and thereafter, it formed part of the compensation pool acquired by the Central Government. However, they denied the sale in favour, of Bhana Ram. According to them, the Naib Tehsildar who made a false entry about the auction of this land in favour of Bhana Ram was placed under suspension. Thus, their case is that the plaintiff is in unauthorised possession of the suit land and they were competent to auction the same. The trial Court found that Bhana Ram validly purchased this land in auction and then sold it to the plaintiff, and thus, he was the owner for valuable consideration. In view of this finding, the suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that there was no cogent evidence on record to prove that the suit land was ever auctioned and was validly purchased by Bhana Ram. According to the lower appellate Court, no evidence has been led by the plaintiff if Bhana Ram deposited the auction money or paid it to any officer authorised to receive the same. Even the receipt showing the payment of this amount was not forthcoming. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal in this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that it was the defendant-State to prove that Mutation Nos. 819 and 828 were wrongly recorded whereby the suit land is shown to have been auctioned to Bhana Ram for a sum of Rs. 1,575/-. Moreover, the defendant-State did not land any evidence to show that the said order of mutation was ever reviewed by any competent authority or any action as such was taken against the said revenue officer who sanctioned the said mutation. Thus, the lower appellate Court in this behalf was wholly wrong & illegal where the trial Court had rightly found that Bhana Ram had purchased the suit property in public auction and rightly sold the same to the plaintiff vide sale deed Ex. P-1, dated 1st September, 1967, for a sum of Rs. 4,500/-.