DASAUNDHI RAM Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiffs) seeking the relief of injection and damages against the defendant/respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the defendant).

(2.) A few facts relevant to decide this Letters Patent Appeal may be stated. The case of the plaintiffs is that S/Shri Rati Ram, Prem Singh and others, who were the owners of the land in dispute sold the said land to the plaintiffs on February 8, 1968 and also delivered the possession of the same. The case of the defendant on the contrary is that the land -owners Rati Ram and others had already sold the land in dispute to him by an oral sale on June i8, 1967 for Rs, 18,00/ - and had also delivered the possession of the said land to him. According to the defendant, a report of the oral sale had been made to the Patwari, who recorded the same in the register known as Roznamcha Vakiaty. A mutation was entered regarding the oral sale and the possession of the defendant was also entered in the revenue record in Kharif 1967. The defendant later on came to know that the said land had been sold by the land -owners to the plaintiffs as well and that they had applied to the revenue assistant for the cancellation of the girdawari entries in favour of the defendant. On the basis of that application, the revenue, assistant passed an order for recording the plaintiffs as in possession of the land. When the defendant came to know about this entry, he applied for the restoration of the entries as recorded in his favour but the application remained pending. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the sale in favour of the defendant was not valid as all the owners had mot agreed to the oral sale in favour of the defendant. It was also alleged that the land -owners had also not received full price of the land but had received only a sum of Rs. 1,000 out of the total price settled at Rs. 1,800. It was further alleged that the sum of Rs, 1,000 had been also returned by the land -owners to the defendant and the possession was taken back from him.

(3.) The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs but on appeal as preferred by the defendant, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court was reversed by the learned District Judge. It was found that the oral sale was properly made by the land -owners in favour of the defendant and that he had been also put in possession of the land in dispute. It was also found that the full price of Rs. 18,00 had been paid by the defendant to the land -owners. Ultimately, it was held that the subsequent sale made in favour of the plaintiffs was ineffective,