DESA SINGH Vs. SUKHRAJ KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dtd. 18/10/2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide which the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 11 Rules 14 and 15 read with Sec. 151 CPC for production of original agreement to sell dtd. 9/3/2013 was dismissed.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and alleged sale deed dtd. 9/9/2013 is illegal, null and void. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought, restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 3 kanals and the defendant entered into an agreement to sell to purchase the same from the Northern side of the khasra number to the extent of 3 kanals from the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dtd. 9/3/2013. From the said land, the plaintiff had already dug out the earth and this fact was also mentioned in the agreement to sell and consequently, a rate was agreed and settled between the parties at Rs.11,25,000.00 for the said land. The date of execution of sale deed was fixed for 9/9/2013. Plaintiff further claimed that he is an illiterate and old person and the defendant has played a fraud upon him by mentioning the khasra No.103//3/2/2/1 in the recital of the sale deed which was never agreed to be sold by the plaintiff. The said khasra number is of more value and more fertile and the defendant illegally and unlawfully got the same incorporated in the sale deed in connivance with deed writer and attesting witnesses. Plaintiff alleged fraud in the aforesaid context.

(3.) The possession of the suit land was never delivered to the defendant, rather possession of khasra No.103//8/1 was delivered and since then, defendant is in possession of khasra No.103//8/1. The sale deed was claimed to be illegal, null and void and result of fraud.