BAHADUR SINGH Vs. VINOD KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Sirmaur District at Nahan, whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant (herein after referred to as the 'plaintiff'), claims that he has been coming as a tenant in respect of the land bearing Khata Khatauni No. 9 min/20, Khasra Nos.115, 118, 179, 183 min, 184, 186, 187 and 188, measuring 70-17 bighas, situate in village Sharu Mailia, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. as per Jamabandi for the year 1997-98. It is submitted by the plaintiff that vide order dated 13.7.1998 he was conferred proprietary rights under Sec. 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on land of Khata No. 9/20 to the extent of 6-4 bighas and mutation No. 217 was accordingly attested. It is alleged by the plaintiff that on 10.10.2000, defendants No. 1 to 4 and their father defendant No. 5 tried to cause interference in the suit land and allegedly proclaimed that their father defendant No. 5 Satya Nana purchased the said land through sale deed from the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed and alleged that he never executed any sale deed in favour of defendant No. 5 and to his utter surprise, on enquiry from the Patwari Halqua, he came to know that the sale deed was executed on 18.12.1999 in relation to the land in question. It is alleged by the plaintiff that in this regard he had also lodged complaint with the Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar, Nahan, claiming that sale deed dated 18.12.1999 is the result of fraud committed by defendants No. 1 to 4 in collusion with their father defendant No. 5 and marginal witnesses, but all in vain. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that he is an illiterate person and affixes his thumb impression and defendant No. 5, being influential person and Pradhan of the Panchayat manipulated and procured forged sale deed. It is averred by the plaintiff that on 18.12.1999, defendant No. 5 had taken him to the Tehsil Office on the pretext to appear as a witness and thus his thumb impression was procured on the document, which was purportedly made a document subsequently. It is also alleged that a conspiracy was hatched qua attestation of mutation No. 217. In the said premise, the plaintiff claimed that the sale deed in question is null and void being in violation of the provisions of the Act and thus, craves for the relief of declaration by declaring the sale deed along with the mutation so attested qua the suit land in favour of the defendants, as null and void and also for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, thereby restraining the defendants from causing any interference in any manner in the suit land.

(3.) Defendants, by way of filing joint written statement, raised preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties, cause of action, valuation and estoppel. On merits, a plea has been taken by the defendants that the plaintiff was inadvertently conferred proprietary rights on land of Khata No. 9/20 min to the extent of 6-4 bighas vide mutation No. 217, but subsequently when the mistake was noticed, the same was got rectified and earlier order was reviewed suo moto by the authorities concerned. The defendants also submitted that the land was rightly purchased from the plaintiff vide registered sale deed and the question of so called fraud, as alleged, thus, does not arise as the sale deed was executed as per the directions of the plaintiff and it was registered by the Sub Registrar after explaining the contents thereof to the vendor and the sale consideration amounting to Rs. 16,000.00 had also been paid to the plaintiff before affecting the sale. The defendants also denied that the plaintiff was brought to the Tehsil by misrepresenting the fact or to become a witness to some document. The plaintiff, who is stated to be a worldly wise person, as such, could not have been misled simply on the ground of illiteracy and thereby to get the sale deed executed and in the said premise the question of undue influence or fraud so alleged, thus, does not arise. In respect of so called contravention of the provisions of the Act, the defendants submitted that since the plaintiff was recorded as tenant long back, therefore, the question of contravention of the provisions as alleged by the plaintiff by executing the sale deed in question on 18.12.1999 does not arise. The defendants therefore, claimed to have acquired title to the suit land on account of its purchase and the allegations to the contra, thus, have been completely negated with the prayer to dismiss the suit.