PRITAM SINGH Vs. AMAR NATH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Defendant no.3 is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1995 rendered by the Additional District Judge, whereby, appeal bearing No.25 of 1991 filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.1991, has been allowed.

(2.) Plaintiff/Respondents instituted the suit claiming declaration to the effect that he has purchased land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas out of total land measuring 82 kanals 17 marlas situated in village Chhanna Gulab Singh Wali from Mohinder Singh for a sum of Rs.10,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 14.05.1985. The land had fallen to the share of the vendor Mohinder Singh, defendant No.1 in a family settlement. Since the date of purchase of the land in dispute, the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession as its owner. Subsequently, defendant no.2 Naranjan Singh has sold his 4 kanals of land to defendant No.3- Pritam Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 10.06.1986. The plaintiffs had already purchased the land by specific khasra number and khasra no. 18//24/2 had previously been purchased by the plaintiff but this specific khasra number had subsequently been sold by defendant no.2-Naranjan Singh also in favour of defendant no.3-Pritam Singh which was illegal, null and void. On the basis of the aforementioned sale deed, ibid, defendant Pritam Singh was threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from this specific khasra number 13//24/2 (2-18) necessitating filing of suit claiming declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) Defendant no.1 did not appear to contest the suit, whereas, defendant no.2 appeared in person and absented later on and proceeded against ex parte. Defendant no.3 contested the suit by filing written statement stating therein that he has purchased the land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas including the land in dispute bearing khasra no.13/24/2(2-18) from defendant no.2 Naranjan Singh for a sum of Rs.8500/- vide registered sale deed dated 10.06.1986. Possession of the plaintiffs was also denied, rather it was stated that defendant no.3 was in cultivating possession of the land. Even family settlement was also denied. The plea of bonafide purchaser was also taken.