SHAKTI CHAND Vs. CHAMARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal so preferred by the appellant (purchaser of the land in dispute) against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge of this Court, D/-11-12-1974: (reported in ILR (1974) Him Pra 1154).

(2.) A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated. The plaintiffs (the original owners) filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute alleging that the defendant Rirku (whose legal representative Chamaru has been brought on record) executed a document D/- 22-12-1964 (Ex. P. 1) undertaking to relinquish tenancy rights after harvesting the Rabi Crop 1965. The defendant had not fulfilled the terms of the document and had retained the possession thereby contravening his undertaking. As such, it was prayed that a decree for possession of the land in dispute be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. In the written statement filed by Rirku, he denied that any such agreement had been entered into by him and it was asserted that a blank document had been signed by him on the representation that an objection had to be filed by him as tenant as the land would otherwise be acquired by the Government. It was further asserted that the agreement was without consideration and was a void transaction. It was also contended that the defendant was an occupancy tenant under the Punjab Act No. VIII of 1953 and that he had become owner of the land and, therefore, civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(3.) The trial court decreed the suit and also held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, that the agreement dt. 22-12-1964 had in fact been executed by the defendant that the agreement had not been obtained by fraud and that the defendant was not an occupancy tenant of the land. 3A. Rirku defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiffs obtained possession pursuant to the decree of the trial court and sold the property to the present appellant and the respondents 7 and 8. The vendees were put in possession of the land. On 30-9-1969, the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. It was held that the agreement had not been executed by Rirku and fraud had been practised upon him and that the transaction was void inasmuch as no consideration had passed.