LAKHPAT Vs. SMT. CHANDER KANTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision petitions Nos. 3628 and 3629 of 1987. Both of them are directed against similar orders passed by the Learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra in two separate suits, vide which it had directed the plaintiff petitioner to pay court fee advalorem on the consideration stipulated in the impugned sale - deeds which are the subject -matter of challenge in suits filed by him.

(2.) THE facts in brief giving rise to Civil Revision No. 3628 of 1987 are that agricultural land measuring 33 kanals 12 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 19/ 2, min, Khatoni No. 25/2, detailed in para 2 of the plaint was mortgaged with possession by the petitioners in favour Sat Pal and Ram Ditta, defendant -respondent Nos. 2 and 3, vide mortgage deed dated 5.3.1974. Again, agricultural land measuring 25 kanals 12 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 19 min Khatauni No. 25 min, Khasra No. 39/21(8 -0), 40/24/2(1 -12), 50/4(8 -0), 50 -5(8 -0), situated at village Mirjapur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, is alleged to have been sold by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 20.2.1978 in favour of Smt. Chander Kanta, defendant -respondent No. 1, who is the wife of respondent No. 2. The petitioner alleges that the said sale deed is the result of fraud and misrepresentation. He intended to create additional mortgage and not sale. He, therefore, attacked the validity of the said sale deed on various grounds.

(3.) 1 am of the considered view that in the instant suit the substantive relief claimed is that of the cancellation of the sale deed. The petitioner, himself being a party to the sale deed, could not sue for a mere declaration that the sale deed was fraudulent and that respondent No. 1 has not acquired any title there under. The sale deed has to be cancelled. Otherwise, title in the land has already passed to respondent No. 1 under it. The petitioner has to get the sale deed, to which he is a party, cancelled. I am bound by the judgment of the Full Bench in Niranjan Kaur's case (supra) and the view that I have taken is consistent with the law laid down therein.