BANSI LAL Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Una, H.P. dated 9.5.2003, passed in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1999.

(2.) Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner-inpossession of land measuring 0-11 marlas bearing Kh. No. 1304 comprised in khewat No. 16, khatauni No. 21, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84, situated in Village Rampur, H.B. No. 209 of Tehsil and District Una, being successors of Smt. Nasib Kaur wife of Swarna Ram, plaintiff No. 1 and mother of plaintiffs No. 2 to 4, on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 8.6.1973. The appellants-defendants as arrayed in the original suit (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The entries in the name of defendants No. 1 to 6, as arrayed in the original Civil Suit No. 5 of 1990, in the revenue record are wrong, baseless, unauthorized. The sale deed by defendants No. 1 to 6, as detailed in the original suit, in favour of defendants No. 7 & 8 is wrong, illegal, fictitious and ineffective as against the rights of the plaintiffs. The suit land was earlier owned and possessed by Inder Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 6, as detailed in the original suit. Sh. Inder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 8.6.1973 Ext. PW-2/A had sold the suit land to Smt. Nasib Kaur wife of Swarna Ram and mother of plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 and Smt. Swarni Devi wife of Dhani Ram, for a consideration of Rs. 300/- and delivered the possession of the suit land. After the execution of sale deed, Nasib Kaur alongwith Swarni Devi are in possession of the suit land. After the death of Nasib Kaur, the plaintiffs being successors of Nasib Kaur alongwith Smt. Swarni Devi are in possession of the suit land. The mutation could not be attested due to the death of Inder Singh and non-appearance of his legal representatives. In these circumstances, mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendants No. 1 to 6. Defendants No. 1 to 6 taking undue advantage of wrong entries of their names, being fully aware that the sale deed existed in favour of plaintiffs, have sold the suit land to defendants No. 7 & 8.

(3.) The suit was contested by only defendants No. 7 & 8, namely, Kishan Chand and Bansi Lal by filing written statement. According to them, they have purchased the suit land in good faith vide registered sale deed dated 20.10.1989 from the owners and physical possession of the suit land was also given to them. Mutation has also been sanctioned in their names. They have raised the construction well before filing of the suit. According to them, Inder Singh remained in physical possession of the suit land till his death and after his death, his LRs remained in possession as owners and now the appellants are in physical possession of the suit land since its purchase.