BAKSHI RAM Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Una), dated 7.12.2000, vide which he partly affirmed the judgment and decree, dated 16.12.1993, of the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class (II), Una, H.P.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1, hereinafter also referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration and injunction as against respondents No.2 and 3, hereinafter also referred to defendants No.1 and 2 and as against the appellant, hereinafter referred to as defendant No.3. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he is co-owner in possession being coparcener of the land measuring 16 kanal and 8 marla situated in village Bhadsali, as detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff had challenged the sale deed dated 24.5.1983 executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of the suit land in favour of defendant No.3 being illegal, void and ineffective. It was alleged that defendants No.1 and 2 alongwith their mother Rama Devi executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 with a view to deprive the plaintiff's legal and valuable rights in the suit land which he acquired by way of birth. It was further alleged that the sale deed was without consideration and illegal and void. The plaintiff also pleaded that since defendant No.3 is threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, hence the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. Defendants No.2 and 3 filed a joint written statement alleging that the suit property was exclusively owned and possessed by defendants No.1 and 2 and the plaintiff had no right or connection with it. The plaintiff was neither the co-sharer nor coparcener in the property in dispute. Defendants No.2 and 3 denied the ancestral nature of the suit land. They also denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It was pleaded that the suit property was purchased by defendant No.3 through registered sale deed for valuable consideration. Defendant No.3 also pleaded that he is the bonafide purchaser for value without notice. It was also submitted that defendant No.3 took all the necessary precautions and made a bona fide enquiry and then purchased the suit land. It was also pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 were fully competent to alienate the suit property.

(3.) THE present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: