PARTAP CHAND Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question of law arises for consideration before me in the present revision petition filed by the petitioner -judgment -debtor.

(2.) Necessary facts for resolving the controversy in the present revision may now be stated; One Surinder Kumar son of Brahma Nand resident of village Ani, Tehsil Ani District Kullu filed a suit against Partap Chand, son of Brahma Nand, resident of village Ani and against Baran Dass, son of Thaplu in the Court of Sub Judge, Rampur Bushehr being Case No. 30 -1 of 1980 for declaration and possession of land admeasuring 10 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 3752/859 Khewat Khatauni 479/701 min situated in Phati Pranali Kothi Sirigarh, District Kullu and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to remove super structure and flour mill constructed by him on the suit land and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the land to the plaintiff. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 inter alia contending that there was collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 (who admitted the claim of the plaintiff) and, hence, the suit was not maintainable. It was also contended by him that defendant No. 2 agreed to sell suit land to him and defendant No. 1 in pursuance of the said. agreement, paid Rs. 29,000 to defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1 was put in possession by defendant No. 2. He was, therefore protected under Section 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant No. 2, thereafter, had no right to sell suit property to the plaintiff. Alternatively defendant No.1 contended that if the plaintiff is held entitled to decree for possession, he may be awarded Rs. 29,000 from the plaintiff.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed necessary issues. By a judgment and decree, dated March 12, 1984, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled.to possession of suit property. The contention of defendant No. 1 that he was protected under Section 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act was negatived. The Court, however, held that the defendant No. 1 was entitled to Rs. 29,000 and the plaintiff was directed to pay the said amount to defendant No.1.