RAJ KUMAR Vs. SURENDER KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE herein is to the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2008.

(2.) THE subject matter of dispute in the present lis is a parcel of land entered in Khata/Khatauni No. 31 min/6 min, Khasra No. 2690/2502, measuring 275.7 square yards, situated in Mohal Joginder Nagar/396, as per the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1998 -99.

(3.) THE defendants in the written statement have averred that in the previously instituted Civil suit No. 146/2000, defendant No. 1 had admitted the claim of defendant No. 2 and as such the same was decreed. Defendant No. 2, therefore, has become owner of the suit land and mutation No. 1306 on the basis of judgment and decree has also been attested and sanctioned in his favour on 4.1.2000. The execution of General Power of Attorney dated 27.1.1997 Ext. P2 in favour of PW Rup Lal though has been admitted, however, it is averred that the plaintiff failed to make final payment as agreed upon to defendant No. 1 and rather filed a Civil Suit No. 161/2000 on 7.7.2000, seeking declaration to the effect that he has acquired title in the suit land by way of adverse possession and also sought the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1. That suit being false and frivolous and filed to grab the suit land was withdrawn on 19.1.2002 at the pretext that the matter stands settled amicably between the parties. Since the plaintiff failed to make payment of the sale consideration, therefore, the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Rup Lal was revoked by defendant No. 1 by serving him with notice dated 1.8.2000. Therefore, said Shri Rup Lal was not competent to execute the sale deed on 27.8.2000 in favour of the plaintiff. Also that the plaintiff was never put in possession of the suit land. Otherwise also, the sale deed qua the suit land has been executed in favour of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, hence hit by the principle of lis pendens. The allegations that the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 146/2000 is the result of collusion and fraud have also been denied being wrong.