BIHARI LAL Vs. SHITLA DEVI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/defendant No. 2 against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur, dated 22.9.2000, vide which he reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class (2), Hamirpur, dated 1.12.1992, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration in regard to Khasra No. 1205 and for recovery of possession, but suit regarding declaration and possession qua Khasra No. 1206 was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession in regard to the land comprised in Khasra Numbers 1205 and 1206 measuring 72 -22 Sq . Mtrs. She alleged that she purchased the land alongwith one shop on 6.11.1986 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/ - from Madho Ram, hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1. It was alleged that with a view to fraud the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 again effected the sale deed in respect of the suit property on 7.8.1987 in favour of defendant No. 2. It was alleged that subsequent sale deed dated 7.8.1987 inter se the defendants is null and void and does not confer any title upon defendant No. 2. She also challenged the mutation No. 67 in respect of subsequent sale deed effected by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 as null and void.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2 pleaded that the sale deed dated 7.8.1987 qua the suit land in his favour is legal and binding, but the sale deed dated 6.11.1986 in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit land was null and void being result of fraud and misrepresentation. It was also pleaded that an affidavit to this effect was given by Julmi Ram, the predecessor -in -interest of defendant No. 1 on 5.8.1987 and an agreement was also executed by Som Nath, husband of the plaintiff on 16.12.1986 that shop of defendant No. 2 is situated over the suit land and he would alienate the suit land to defendant No. 2. It was pleaded that defendant No. 2 constructed the shop in the year 1981 incurring expenses of Rs. 50,000/ - since defendant No. 1 had executed an agreement of sale qua the suit land in the year 1980 with defendant No. 2.